Skip to main content

Full text of "Christ was not a Jew; an epistle to the Gentiles"

See other formats



An Epistle to the Gentiles 

Jacob Elon Conner, A. B., Ph. D. 

Published Privately 
New York 


“Christ Was NOT A Jew 99 

This book is addressed to all Gentiles, 
whether Christians or otherwise. 

The words “Catholic** and “Protes¬ 
tant** are not to be found in it. 

It is historical and analytical in treat¬ 
ment, not doctrinal. 

It is not “preachy**—it is not irrever¬ 
ent, it is factual. 

It is not iconoclastic; but it does draw 
a line of demarcation between 
Christianity and the primitiveness 
of Judaism. 

Those who say, “It makes no difference 
from what race Christ came,** are 
wrong, for that is only a personal 
attitude, ignoring the historical truth, 
and “Half truth is whole error.** 

It is the Jewish writers who insist that 
Christ was of their race. 

Reason tells us that Christ was not a 
Jew, history confirms the dictates 
of reason, and Christ said, “Men do 
not gather grapes of thorns or figs 
of thistles.*’ 

This book shows how and why that 
error originated, and why it must be 
rectified. It is vital to Christianity. 

Price, by mail or express, prepaid, $1.00 

Draw Money Orders Payable to 




An Epistle to the Gentiles 


Jacob Elon Conner, A. B., 

Published Privately 
New York 


193 6 

Copyright, 1936, 

Jacob Eton Conner 


It is admitted by a Jewish source that the most out¬ 
standing Christian theologian of recent times, Adolf 
Harnack, in his latest work, rejected the hypothesis of 
the Jewish origin of Christ and His doctrine. “Virtually 
every word He taught is made to be of permanent and 
universal humanitarian interest. The Messianic features 
are abolished entirely, and virtually no importance is 
attached to Judaism in its capacity of Jesus’ environment.” 

See Part /, Chapter IV, /?. 13. 




Let the reader be informed hereby that I venture upon 
my theme as a Gentile or non-Jew, addressing other Gentiles 
including Christians. The theologian may find nothing new 
with respect to Christ as the Son of Man unless it may be 
the writer’s point of view, and especially the nationalistic 
implications arising therefrom. Concerning the latter I 
beg the reader’s indulgence with respect to the unity of 
the theme; for I find that such unity is justified by the 
attitude of Judaism toward the modern political state as 
well as its historical attitude toward the Christian religion, 
both of which may be described in a word as disintegrating. 

This is by no means the first defense of the postulate 
that Christ was not a Jew. Ebionitism, “the earliest of the 
heresies,” rested upon the same false assumption that is 
herein called into question. That heresy denounced Paul 
and the other apostles who carried Christianity to the 
Gentiles without first converting them to Judaism. The 
Ebionites were Judeo-Christians—more Jewish than Chris¬ 
tian. Hence, this is but a new answer to an old fallacy in 
the light of the present. In a book of this limited size and 
well-nigh boundless scope, much must remain unsaid. I 
have aimed to state the case for the affirmative of my pos¬ 
tulate, cover the main points as outlined, and give my 
conclusions backed by ancient and modern sources. 

Timeliness is given to this theme by the recent growth 
in assertiveness of the Jewish race throughout Christendom. 
Such growths have been shown by history to have recurred 
repeatedly, and to have ended invariably in a catastrophe 
for the Jews. The present tendency in that direction is 
aggravated by the tacit assent—not to call it timidity—of 
certain occupants of Christian pulpits, who by their acqui¬ 
escence in the Jewish boast that they have given us Christ 



and our religion, put themselves at an enormous disad¬ 
vantage before the Gentile world, if not in their own con¬ 
sciences. Their place is in the synagogue. What then? 
Must the Gentile world come to the rescue of Christianity 
from the clutches of modern Ebionitism as did the Greek 
Christians before and after the Apostle Paul? We Gentiles 
have been accused of cowardice for tolerating this situation. 
A Jewish 1 writer has accused us of cowardice because we 
have refrained from speaking our minds in all frankness 
about Judaism and the Jews. Courtesy on the critic’s part 
might have discovered reasons more compatible with good 
manners, assuming that he was able to do so. 

However, this volume accepts the challenge of the critic 
above mentioned, and I shall leave nothing unsaid that I 
think needs to be said concerning Judaism and the Jews 
as the accidental background of Christ and Christianity. 
Since plain speaking is demanded by our critics and their 
spokesman, they shall have it, and they have themselves 
to thank for it. 

I must advert also to another challenge—one that more 
nearly concerns the churches if they wish to escape modern 
Ebionitism 2 —it is that of a blunt, outspoken old Gentile 
who said to me, “If God is a Jew, what have we Gentiles 
to do with your religion?” What indeed? Does Chris¬ 
tianity meet that challenge today? 

I must emphasize the fact that Judaism and the Jews 
is primarily a collective problem. We are obliged to 
“indict a whole race,” since it is a concrete racial challenge 
that is before us. Individual exceptions are of secondary 
concern, and must wait till the larger issue is disposed of. 

1—Marcus Eli Ravage, “A Real Case Against the Jews,” Century 
Mag., Jan., 1928. 

2—See Chapter III, final pages. 



Individuals are moreover a matter of individual and per¬ 
sonal relationships, and the adjustments thereof require 
much time and attention. Organized society is also an 
individual, collectively speaking, and its demands are 
immediate, especially whenever a coup d’etat is threatened. 
We can not stop to ask if there are any well disposed per¬ 
sons among those who challenge us and put us to our 
proofs, especially when they maintain an alien attitude 
toward our social, political and religious ideals. 

A race is not to be judged by its best nor its worst, 
nor by a chance neighbor or acquaintance whom one may 
like or dislike. Hence, in this case we must rule out the 
Hebrew prophets just as we do the Jewish criminals of 
the present day, and likewise the Jews whom we happen 
to know as individuals—the few among the millions. In 
a word, Judaism and Jews must be judged by racial ideals , 
and adherence to those ideals in mass . As Gentiles, as 
Americans, we ask no more for ourselves, and within our 
own domain it is our right and our duty to resist whatever 
is hostile thereto. 

In treating this subject as a collective problem it is not 
intended to exculpate the individual Jews, if indeed that were 
possible. But it is intended to stress the mighty power of 
the group over its component parts. That mighty power may 
be best observed in sub-human animals, as in the herd, drove, 
pack, flock, swarm and gang. Among humans, strengthened 
by the powers of speech and superior organization, by 
ancient traditions and race psychology, a common purpose 
to prey upon one’s environment may eventuate in a tribe 
with a parasitic organization and objective. I invite the 
attention and the serious study of those interested in the 
social sciences, and particularly the Jews themselves, to 
this aspect of their racial history, and especially to the 
formative influence of the Talmud upon them for this very 



purpose. Nobody loves a parasite, or at least nobody 
should. If my criticisms of the Jews may seem harsh, I 
rely for their justification on the facts herein presented, 
on the evidence to be found in the Talmud and other ancient 
sources, and on present-day criticisms by a thin scattering 
of Jews against their race and its leaders. 

In confronting the Christian world one must allow for 
a wide divergence of views in scriptural exegesis. It would 
be too much to expect unanimous accord with the views 
herein expressed, but it is not too much to hope that in 
the midst of disagreement there may be no disharmony. 
I have done my utmost to avoid doctrinal differences among 

And Christians of all degree must remember that Gen¬ 
tiles outside of the churches have a stake in the purity and 
perpetuity of Christianity, if on nothing more than social 
and political grounds. For Christianity is not a hide-bound 
racial cult, but a tolerant world religion. In America, at 
least, it is a nation declared by the courts to be a Christian 
nation that guarantees liberty of religious belief to all, 
as well as disbelief; but let Judaism gain the upper hand 
as it has done in Soviet Russia, and its creed of atheism 
is proclaimed for all, while the Jewish cult remains 

Let not Christian theology, therefore, be offended at 
the attempt of unordained minds and hands to draw a line 
of demarcation between that which is sacred and inviolable, 
and on the other hand its accidental background, the Juda¬ 
ism of antiquity, too primitive and changeless to command 
respect, to say nothing of reverence and adoration. Such 
minds and hands are at least free from the influence of 
Hebrew traditionalism, and for that reason may the more 
clearly grasp the fact that Christianity belongs to the present 
and the future, not to tradition, no, nor even to the church 



alone, but to the entire Gentile world, because it is essen¬ 
tially a Gentile religion, not based on Judaism—its Founder 
not a Jew and therefore a Gentile as the “Son of Man.” 

Thanks and appreciation are due to my many friends, 
the value of whose counsel and constructive criticism is 
beyond estimate. 

Jacob Elon Conner. 

New York City, 





Why should Christianity, since it is a world religion, 
be tied back to the locale of its origin? 

This little planet on which we live is such a tiny speck 
in the wide expanse of the universe to deserve so much 
attention from the Creator of all things visible and invis¬ 
ible. And can anyone but a Jew in these modern times 
persuade himself that his race alone is the “chosen people” 
of the Almighty? Such colossal egotism is as pitiful as 
it is contemptible. Christ’s message is universal—it need 
not be restricted to the narrow confines of this little world, 
to say nothing of a mere handful of its people, overbur¬ 
dened with conceit. 

And why should Christianity be held to the belittling 
postulate—let theologians take notice—that it is the heir 
of traditions not its own—filthy, absurd traditions some¬ 
times, and that, too, of an unfriendly race, for which it 
has been wont to apologize needlessly? What part has 
a world religion with a mere ethnic cult with which it is 
logically irreconcilable? Christianity has learned to be 
tolerant; but it must not learn to compromise. Judaism is 
forever intolerant and forever compromising as a racial 
cult must ever be. It is time for Christianity to scrap 
Judaism and its demoralizing influence, lest it lose alto¬ 
gether the confidence and respect of the Gentile world. 
In preparation therefor a careful distinction must be made 
between what Judaism is and what it has borrowed from 
sources older than itself. 

In whatever part of the world Christ appeared He must 
needs be detached from its localizing influence in order 
to belong to all mankind. The early Christians, naturally, 
with their Judaistic background, failed to detach Him com¬ 
pletely. Save for the Greek Christians of Antioch and 



elsewhere along the Mediterranean coast, Christ’s message, 
humanly speaking, bid fair to be smothered or absorbed 
into its background of Judaism. Had He appeared in 
Greece, Persia or elsewhere, the same obstacle would 
have been presented—the difficulty of getting free from 
the influence of the background, as conveyed by those who 
delivered His message to mankind. That message must be 
cleansed from the defiling contact with the primitive cult 
of Judaism with which it has no necessary connection. 
It did not derive from “the law, the writings and the 
prophets,” nor from the Hebrew racial deity Jahveh, but 
direct from a higher contact than man ever knew. He 
tolerated what belonged of necessity to His background, 
but all the while pointing out “a more excellent way.” 
It is absurd to say that He and His message derived from 
the crass materialism of His Judaistic surroundings. 

The transcendant wisdom of Christ is nowhere seen to 
better advantage than in His attitude toward law and order, 
though His message to the world was spiritual and there¬ 
fore directed toward the individual rather than toward 
organized states. He even counseled obedience to the con¬ 
quering Romans, which was wormwood to the sullen and 
resentful Jews. Likewise His doctrines today are in sup¬ 
port of “the powers that be,” law and order under duly 
constituted authority, whereas Anti-Christ is forever anti¬ 
national. The world is still echoing with the attack of 
Jewish bolshevism upon Christian Russia, while the latter 
was embarrassed along with ourselves in the greatest of 
all wars. And now the scope of its devastation is widening 
and reaching to our shores, and again Anti-Christ is gloat¬ 
ing over the prospect of another victim while it preaches 
non-resistance and “internationalism,” though its own name 
is Judaism. Its program is as follows: First defile, then 
destroy. You may read its purpose in the Jewish Talmud, 



you may find its program (no matter who wrote them), in 
the so-called Protocols. Its blight may be read in the 
press, seen on the screen and on the stage, heard in the 
radio, and felt in business and government everywhere. 
It has even attacked the last stronghold of free speech, 
namely, the pulpit, both through its demoralizing tradi¬ 
tionalism and its paid apologists. It works under the dis¬ 
guises of nihilism, bolshevism, communism, socialism, 
pacifism and internationalism, discarding any label as soon 
as it becomes odious and taking refuge under a new one. 
But its one unchanging and secreted name is Judaism . It 
keeps in the dark as long as it can find dupes to obey its 
orders. It works its sinuous way toward an open defiance 
of both state and church, just as it did in Russia. Begin¬ 
ning with small insolences, too slight to be resented openly, 
this Jewish attack upon state and church stealthily crawls 
toward a higher objective whence it can dominate the 
scene. For more than two thousand years, as anyone may 
read in ancient history, the morals and methods of Judaism 
have been the same. For verification, “search the Scrip¬ 
tures,” but don’t forget also to search the historians who 
are not Jews, such as Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Strabo, 
besides such moderns as Gibbon, Renan, Lanciani and many 
more. In view of the past and the present of Judaism, 
to remain uninformed is to court disaster. 

Many devout Christians there are who say that it makes 
no difference to them from what race Christ came. This 
is but expressive of an attitude of personal loyalty to 
Christ, commendable in itself, but treasonable in effect to 
His mission. Historic truth can not be ignored so indif¬ 
ferently. It is an equivocation of position arising from 
intellectual indolence or incapacity to think, and it yields 
the whole question as to the divinity of His source. It 
ignores the patent fact that the Founder of Christianity, had 



He been a Jew, could never have been a Savior of the 
Gentiles. Hence, even at the risk of brushing aside cer¬ 
tain Christian traditions, such as “the Son of David,” 
which Christ Himself ridiculed, and other traditions hal¬ 
lowed in art and song, sooner or later the stark truth stands 
out before us demanding recognition, and woe be to those 
who persistently ignore it. The truth demanding recogni¬ 
tion is that Christ, as the Son of Man, was a Galilean, and 
the Galileans were not Jews, in race, though in part Juda- 
ised in religion and nationality. It is RACE that counts, 
for “A stream must rise from a source higher than itself,” 
and Judaism was no such source for Christianity. “Men 
do not gather grapes of thorns nor figs of thistles”—so 
said Christ. 





Chapter I deals with the historical-racial proofs that 

Christ was Not a Jew by showing that Gali¬ 
leans were not of the Jewish race. 

Chapter II displays the fallacy of accepting the totally 

inadequate data extant of a genealogical 
character. Hence, no family or dynastic 
issues are involved. 

Chapter III explains how and why the Judeo-Christians 

limited the matter to genealogy instead of 
considering the broader racial aspects as they 
logically should have done. The advent of 
Christ has the breadth of humanity in inter¬ 
est, and has no concern whatsoever for the 
re-establishment of a Jewish state. 

Chapter IV summarizes. 

Inasmuch as we have no trustworthy genealogical data 
we may dismiss all evidence of that character. The pur¬ 
pose of those genealogies was to establish a claim to “the 
throne of David”—a throne which did not exist, which did 
not interest humanity in the least—and a claim that Christ 
repudiated with ridicule. This claim was a dream of the 
Judeo-Christians; and the Jewish Talmudists made irrev¬ 
erent, and even salacious sport of it. 

Fortunately, there remains the historical-racial approach 
which broadens and ennobles the theme into worthy pro¬ 
portions, thus eliminating the faulty genealogies. It is 



through history and its adjuncts, anthropology and archae¬ 
ology, that it is possible to establish the difference between 
Galilean and Judaean, as marked in contrast as it is between 
any modern race and the Jews. Neither the Galileans nor 
ourselves need to prove that we are not Jews—the line of 
demarcation has been drawn by nature as well as by history 
with its adjuncts. THE HISTORICAL-RACIAL PROOF, 



PART I — Chapter I 


“Galilee of the Nations” (Gentiles)—that is what the 
prophet Isaiah 1 called it, and such indeed it was—all of 
it, east and west of the Jordan—Gentile in race though 
partially Judaised in the cult of the Jews, and from time 
to time also in nationality. It was Gentile long before 
Joshua led his tribes across the Jordan, claiming their 
territory and finally settling among them, but not extermi¬ 
nating them as their Jahveh had commanded. Nearly six 
hundred years later it was left Gentile again when Sargon 

overwhelmed the Israelites, scattered the ten tribes abroad, 
and replaced them with other Gentiles. Finally it was left 
wholly Gentile in 164 B. C. when Simon Maccabee removed 
the Jewish infiltration out of Galilee back to Judea. There¬ 
after it was kept strictly Galilean beyond the time of 
Christ by the well-known antipathy between the Judeans 
of the south and the Galileans of the north. Fifty years 
after Christ, the Governor of Galilee, Josephus, the Jewish 
historian, describes the Galileans as a people wholly unlike 
the Jews in temperament and ideals—so different indeed 
that they could not have been of the same race. There 
was a taboo against intermarriage between them as recorded 
in the Jewish Talmud. In a word, Christ as the Son of 
Man ivas a Galilean , and the Galileans were not Jews. 
This is the verdict of history. 2 It is also the verdict of 

1— Isaiah 9:1. 

2— Houston Stewart Chamberlain, “Foundations of the Nineteenth 
Century,” Vol. I, p. 206, “There is, accordingly, as we see, not the 
slightest foundation for the supposition that Christ’s parents were 
of Jewish descent.” 



nature which she stamped upon the characteristics of 
Galilean and Jew. If any hold otherwise the burden of 
proof is upon themselves. 

The Canaanites 

Palestine, the western arm of the “fertile crescent,” 
had been inhabited by Gentiles for more than a thousand 
years when Joshua appeared with his Hebrew tribes about 
1300 B. C. These Gentiles or non-Jews were not even 
Semitic, but were Aryan like ourselves—members of the 
Caucasion or white race, known to the Jews or Hebrews 
as Canaanites. The history of the Aryans in all that part 
of the world goes back some centuries beyond the year 
4000 B. C. Hence, the Hebrew tribes came as raiders or 
invaders, just as the Midianites or Arabs came on many 
a subsequent occasion. They succeeded in establishing 
themselves in the homeland of the Canaanites as most 
unwelcome guests. In fact, they claimed all this excellent 
territory as their own by prior right, saying that it had 
been given to a legendary ancestor named Abraham cen¬ 
turies before they arrived to lay claim to it—an argument 
that failed to appeal to the Canaanites with any show of 
justice. It did not strengthen the argument of the raiders 
when they insisted that their own tribal deity, Jahveh, had 
so ordered it, because they were his “chosen people.” The 
long and bitter struggle that followed for possession was 
much like the Semitic raids that followed later when the 
Midianites continued to push northward into the delectable 
lands of the fertile crescent, reaching down through Pales¬ 
tine. It was a struggle that was disgraced by many deeds 
of treachery and savage warfare, which are duly set down 
in the annals of the invaders as acts of valor and heroism 
on their part. After 225 years of more or less desultory 
fighting under leaders called “judges,” Saul of the tribe 



of Benjamin was chosen king about the year 1075 B. C., 
and they continued the fighting, sometimes among them¬ 
selves and again with their neighbors. Saul was succeeded 

by David of the tribe of Judah, the southernmost of all 
except that of Simeon, a vassal tribe. David about 1030 
B. C. established his frontiers farther to the south with 
his capital at Jerusalem, the Hebrews being still a united 
people, though with a strong admixture of neighboring 
races. Judea is a barren, hilly country of meagre natural 
resources but well adapted for defense, a good stronghold 
for an outlaw chief as David was in his younger days. 
As a home for a prosperous and peace-loving people it 
was far less desirable than Galilee—a fact grudgingly 
admitted in the Jewish proverbs. David was followed by 
his son Solomon about the year 1000 B. C., who reigned 
30 years, thus completing a period for the three kings of 
a little over 100 years, the only brilliant and fairly stable 
epoch in the history of the Hebrew people. It was a 
costly season of lavish display of kingly power in the 
erection of buildings by hired labor in Jerusalem. More¬ 
over, it was at the expense of the people of fruitful Galilee 
and Samaria, who profited little by the upbuilding of 
Jerusalem though they had to pay the bills. Consequently 
it left a discontented and debt-ridden people for Solomon’s 
successor to deal with. 

Disunion and Its Consequences 

Thus it was the ten tribes of the north who had the* 
most to pay and the least to gain by this royal extravagance* 
and they brought their grievances before Solomon’s suc¬ 
cessor. Rehoboam, son of Solomon, as if to counter¬ 
balance the reputed wisdom of his father, showed his inept- 
ness to rule by adopting a course that was grasping, short¬ 
sighted, typically Jewish therein, and had its logical result. 



in the division of his realm into the two petty kingdoms 
of Judah and Israel, the former with its capital at Jerusalem 
and its people known thereafter as Jews. Judea being 
without natural resources found it profitable to attract 
worshipers to that city. Hence, they resisted all attempts 
to set up places of worship elsewhere. This chapter has 
but little to do with the fortunes of the Kingdom of Judea. 
In fact, had it not been for the tragedy of the Crucifixion 
of Christ about 1000 years after Solomon, Jerusalem would 
figure only incidentally in the whole scheme of Christ’s 
life and message. For His mission, His labors, His teach¬ 
ings, His disciples, His surroundings were Galilean, except 
on rare occasions. Jerusalem as the national capital and 
metropolis in His time has drawn an undeserved attention 
to itself, away from the principal theatre of His mission. 

The Lay of the Land in Galilee 

Neither Israel of the ten tribes nor the smaller nation 
of Judah was able to withstand a first-class power; and 
though Israel had by far the greater numerical strength, 
the strategy of her position was particularly unfortunate 
from a military point of view. For Israel lay directly 
in the path between the two strongest nations of the times, 
Egypt and Assyria, and these two were perpetual enemies. 
It was a well-beaten warpath, consisting in part of a valley 
that stretched across the southern part of Galilee. The 
valley itself was a most desirable asset from every point 
of view, except that the circumstances noted converted it 
into a disastrous liability. It is the Valley of Esdraelon, 
containing the Plain of Jezreel, the Field of Armageddon, 
and it is probably the most famous battle-ground in his¬ 
tory. The central part of it is distended like a pouch, 
with mountain spurs sticking into it like so many needles 
from different sides and angles. The eastern end leads 


into the deep trough of the Jordan and to the fords 
thereof, whence a feasible route northeastward leads toward 
Damascus and Assyria. The western end narrows to a 
pass as it approaches the Mediterranean Sea, and then 
circles around the base of Mount Carmel, standing like a 
sentinel with his foot in the water, guarding the entrance 

into Galilee. Then bending sharply southward goes this 
ancient war-path all the way to Egypt, through a long 
coastal valley known as the Vale of Sharon, with a low 
range of foothills guarding the eastern flank known as the 
Shephelah. But the pass around Mount Carmel is rough 
and rocky, and therefore unsuited to the needs of large 
armies. Besides, a better avenue to Esdraelon is offered by 
three other routes leading thereto from the Vale of Sharon, 
and one of these, the Valley of Dothan, gives swift and 
easy access to the eastern end of the Valley of Esdraelon. 
This it was that was used by both Egyptians and Assyrians 
for attack or defense, according to need. Naturally, both 
Egypt and Assyria endeavored to retain the Kingdom of 
Israel as an ally, and this kept the Israelites guessing as 
to which was the stronger at the moment, and their foreign 
policy was shaped accordingly. But this makeshift policy 
was certain to prove fatal in the end, for the stronger 
power was sure to remember how undependable the Israel¬ 
ites were likely to be in an emergency when they were most 

Deportation of the Ten Tribes 

Sargon, 1 King of Assyria, remembered. Besides he was 
too good a strategist to overlook the necessity of shutting 
out the Egyptians completely from the Plain of Esdraelon, 
which was a veritable cross-roads in all directions. His 

1—Tiglath Pileser III, who assumed the ancient title of Sargon. 



own necessity and the fickle support of the Israelites forced 
him to crush the Kingdom of Israel. And he crushed it. 
This was in the year 722 (or 721) B. C. And he did 
more than that; for he removed the shattered remnants 
of the tribes of Israel and scattered them throughout 
his wide domain. And it is important to remember that 
they never came back—they were the “ten lost tribes of 
Israel.” As many as 27200 2 were removed, and we are 
told 3 that “there was none left but the tribe of Judah 
only”—in Judea. It must have amounted to a “clean 
sweep” in Galilee, including the Valley of Esdraelon, for 
this was the key position in all that territory. It was 
harsh treatment for the Israelites, to be sure, but not so 
harsh as total extermination, which the Israelites had been 
commanded by their Jahveh to mete out to the Canaanites 
in the first place. 

Sargon Brings Back the Gentiles 

There was something like poetic justice in the fact that 
Sargon went farther afield than the Semitic world for a 
population to replace the Israelites he had removed from 
Galilee. He now brought in from various parts of his wide 
dominions “men from Babylon 1 and Cutha, and from Ava 
and from Havath and from Sepharvaim,” regions of both 
Aryan and Semitic stock, but none of “the chosen race. Well 
might Isaiah down in Jerusalem, speaking of these events, 
call the land “Galilee of the Gentiles,” for Sargon wanted 
no more of the undependable people whom he removed. 

The Nordics in Galilee 

Over the long route to his ancient enemy in Egypt— 
a route which Sargon now controlled throughout—he led 

2— Encyclopaedia Britannica, see “Galilee,” “Samaria,” etc. 

3— II Kings ,17:18. 

1—II Kings 17:24. 



among his cavalry forces some strange wild troopers from 
the north, each of whom rode his horse as if he were 

a part of the animal itself. These were Scythians, other¬ 
wise known to Old Testament writers as “Gog and Magog.” 
Certain it is that they struck terror into the hearts of the 
people of Judea by their formidable appearance and their 
skill in horsemanship. They rode whithersoever they would 
outside of the walled cities, while the Hebrews could only 
rave at them. It was these warriors, no doubt, that on 
returning from Egypt made at least one settlement in 
Galilee known as Scythopolis, later as Beth Shean, and 
now as Beisan. It is the most commanding point in Galilee 
—and it is significant that Scythopolis commands the fords 
of the Jordan, and by virtue of that fact it is the gateway 
into what was Assyria from the direction of danger. 

The Scythians 

And who were these terrifying Scythians, or whence 
came they? They came from that northern region we 
now know as Russia, the ancestral home of the people of 
the white skin, the Indo-Europeans or Caucasians. Anthro- 
poligists are now telling us that those broad steppes from 
the Volga eastward saw the origin and nurture among 
his domesticated animals, not only of the Russians, but 
also of the Celts, Teutons, Gauls, Greeks, or predomi¬ 
nantly the racial strain known as the Nordics. It was the 
people of this region, following the southward course of 
the Volga and the Caspian Sea to the frontiers of Asia 
Minor, that had ventured in the remote prehistoric past 
toward warmer climes and easier conquests, down through 
Iran into India and Mesopotamia. It is these northern 
whites whom we have recently learned to have been the 
predecessors of the Semites in the Land of Sumer and 
throughout Asia Minor, and who have been called “The 



Makers 1 of Civilization.” There is a long-standing tradi¬ 
tion among the Russian Orthodox, descendants of the 
ancient Scythians, that the Virgin Mary was of their race. 

As a tradition it is far more believable than that of a 
Jewish origin, the Jews having been twice ejected from 
Galilee and kept separate by racial antipathies. 

The Gauls Invade Asia Minor 

At a much later date another European element was 
added to the population of Asia Minor within easy striking 
distance of Palestine. These were the far-wandering Gauls 
who split off from the army of Brennus in 278-77 B. C., 
roamed over northern and southern Asia Minor, and finally 
settled in what become Galatia, named for their race, a 
name enshrined in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. And 
we must not overlook the possibility of their name having 
been given to Galilee itself, as well as the sea of Galilee, 
and especially the region of Gaulanitis on the eastern shore 
of that sea. Both Scythians and Gauls were noteworthy 
warriors, kindred in spirit if not in blood with those of 
Galilee who held back the Roman legions, and whose fear¬ 
less devotion to the cause of freedom and independence 
won the admiration of their enemies. Moreover, like the 
Galileans, they fought with system rather than with Semitic 
passion and guile. 

Grecian Galilee 

Of all the Gentile influences within and around Galilee 
the Greek was by far the most pervasive and important. 
One might read of the Decapolis in the New Testament 
without dreaming of its extent and its thoroughly Greek 
character. It lay just east of the Jordan from Samaria 

1—L. A. Waddell, L.L.D., C.B., E.E.I., “The Makers of Civilization,” 

(1929). Same, “Indo-Sumerian Seals Deciphered.” 



and western Galilee and was about the same in area as 
the two combined. Its commerce and contacts with the 
world outside was by way of the Valley of Esdraelon, 
thus affording for over three hundred years before Christ 
an intermingling of populations that made all Galilee cos¬ 
mopolitan. In the time of Christ the extent of this inter¬ 
mingling, backed by the Roman power which was exercised 
through the medium of the Greek language, had not only 
kept back the marauding Arabs but had pretty thoroughly 
Grecianized all Galilee. From Nazareth as a center there 
was Scythopolis only twenty miles away, Tiberias and 
Tarichaeae five miles nearer, while less than ten miles to 
the north were Roma and Sepphoris—all Greek cities. 
The coastal cities of what had been Phoenicia and Philistia 
were now all Greek in language and culture. Even in 
their court proceedings and legal documents the Romans 
ruled the country through the Greek language because it 
was already well known throughout Palestine when the 
Romans came. Greek names and words were slipping into 
local Aramaic, as witness most of the names of Christ’s 
disciples. “It is 1 impossible to believe that our Lord and 
His disciples did not know Greek,” and whenever they 
crossed to the east side of Jordan or the sea of Galilee 
they were in Greek territory and were surrounded by Greek 
civilization. Even the non-Greeks, the Jews and Syrians 
throughout Judea, as well as in Samaria and Galilee, had 
to learn Greek if they had any dealings with the Romans. 
The Hebrew was a dead language in the time of Christ, 
as already stated, and the Old Testament was therefore 
translated into Greek for the benefit of the Jews themselves. 

Origin of the Greek Influence 

The beginning of the Greek influence in this region 
dates from 332 B. C., when the soldiers of Alexander the 



Great found the region east of the Jordan to be highly 
desirable and but sparsely occupied. They proceeded to 
occupy it at once, for they were yet to learn that the reason 

it was available was because of its exposure to attack by 
the Arabs. But they were soldiers, the world conquerors, 
and they were soon joined by colonists from the Greek 
world. These had only to cross the sea to Mount Carmel, 
whence it was a journey of forty miles across Galilee 
to the fords of the Jordan. Each of the ten 1 cities that 
they founded had a considerable extent of surrounding 
territory, sprinkled over with a loose scattering of villages 
—all of which were organized into a confederacy to resist 
the Arabs. And there was much need of it, for at one 
time the Arabs had the Greeks badly worsted, and would 
have driven them out had it not been for the timely assist¬ 
ance of Pompey and his Roman legions. Thus the Roman 
power, an oppressor in Greece, was welcome as a liberator 
in the Decapolis. 

The Decapolis Under the Romans 

Under the Romans the Decapolis, or eastern Galilee, 
reached a high degree of development — “colonnaded 1 
streets, the arch, the forum, the temple, the bath, the mau¬ 
soleum, in florid Doric and Corinthian.” Some had an 
amphitheatre or two, some of them, as at Gadara and 
Kanatha, had temples that were very beautiful in classic 
Greek style, and their religion was thoroughly Greek. 
There were paved roads and other public works, such as 
the aqueduct at Gadara which brought water from a point 

1—George Adam Smith, “Historical Geography of the Holy Land,” 
p. 608. Same, pages 599 and 608, the Decapolis (ten cities) con¬ 
sisted at first of Scythopolis (west of the Jordan), Pella, Dion, 
Philadelphia, Gerasa, Gadara, Raphana, Kanatha, Hippos (and by 
courtesy) Damascus, each with its cluster of villages. At least 
ten more cities were added later. 



thirty miles away. Omitting Damascus, which was included 
in the Decapolis by courtesy, the Decapolis embraced most 

of the territory southeast of the sea of Galilee, extending 
eastward to the desert and southward as far as Philadelphia. 
Four of these cities, Pella, Scythopolis, Gadara and Hippos, 
possessed contiguous territory, making a solid belt of Greek 
control along and across the Jordan, so that for a con¬ 
siderable distance a very important stretch of that river 
was a Greek stream. 

“The Decapolis 1 was flourishing in the time of Christ’s 
ministry. Gadara with her temples and her amphitheatres, 
with her arts, her games and her literature, overhung the 
Lake of Galilee and the voyages of her fishermen. A 
leading Epicurean of the previous generation, the founder 
of the Greek anthology, some of the famous wits of the 
day, the reigning emperor’s tutor, had all been bred within 
sight of the homes of the writers of the New Testament. 
Philodemus, Meleager, Menippus, Theodorus, were names 
of which the one end of the Lake of Galilee was proud, 
when Matthew, Peter, James and John were working at 
the other end. We can not believe that the two worlds 
which this one landscape embraced did not break into each 
other. * * * We have ample proof that the Kingdom 
of God came forth in no obscure corner, but in the very face 
of the kingdom of this world.” 

The Plain of Esdraelon 

“What a plain it is,” says one, 1 “with it are associated 
the names of Deborah, Barak, Sisera and his murderer, 
Jael, the Midianites or Arabs, Saul and the Philistines, 
Gideon, David and Jonathan, King Josiah and his defeat 

1—George Adam Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 
602 and 607. 

1—David Smith, “The Days of the Flesh,” p. 17 ff. (also 2). 



and death at the hands of the Egyptians at Megiddo, Elijah 
and the mound of Tel-el-Kassis where he is said to have 
slain the prophets of Baal, Jehu and his ride from Beth 
Shean, the camp of Holofernes, the elephants and engines 
of Antiochus, Cleopatra and her ladies, Pompey, Antony, 
Vespasian and Titus, Greek colonists on the way to Deca- 
polis, Christian pilgrims, later the Moslems, then the Cru¬ 
saders, Napolean in his time, and the conquest of the Turk 
in the latest world war. All this and much more has 
passed in review within sight of the hill on which stands 
the village of Nazareth.” 


A broken range of foothills, rising sometimes into con¬ 
siderable elevations, bounds the northern limits of the 
Plain of Esdraelon, and near the middle of the distance 
between the Mediterranean and the Sea of Galilee is 
Nazareth, the boyhood home of Christ. Nazareth is so 
centrally located with reference to the routes of traffic that 
it could not escape being a cross-roads of travel in many 
directions. “It was no obscure village in the backwoods 
as some have imagined, for the caravan route from Damas¬ 
cus to the seaports of the Mediterranean, and southward 
to Egypt, rounded the hill whereon stood this village. It 
is “a lovely spot, 1 worthy of the encomiums of Antoninus 
the Martyr who likened it to Paradise.” 

“Nazareth 2 is usually represented as a secluded and an 
obscure village. * * * You can not see from Nazareth 
the surrounding country, for Nazareth rests in a basin 
among hills; but the moment you climb to the edge of 
the basin, which is everywhere within the limit of the 
village boys’ playground, what a view you have! Esdrae¬ 
lon lies before you with its twenty battle fields. There is 
Naboth’s vineyard, and the place of Jehu’s revenge upon 



Jezebel; there Shunem and the house of Elijah: you see 
thirty miles in three directions. It is a map of Old Testa¬ 
ment history.” Toward the north one could see another 
road, “between Acre and the Decapolis, along which legions 
marched, and princes swept with their retinues, and all 
sorts of travelers from all countries went to and fro. 
* * * All the rumor of the empire entered Palestine 
close to Nazareth—the news from Rome about the emporer’s 
health, the changing influence of the great statesmen; about 
Caesar’s last order concerning the tribute, or whether the 
policy of the Procurator would be sustained—all this would 

furnish endless talk in Nazareth, both among men and 
boys.” Naturally, the temperament of the Galilean was 
by no means as austere as was that of the Judean, for he 
had far wider contacts with the world; and it was a pleas¬ 
ant world, with no savage deserts near at hand encroaching 
on his view as it was in Judaea. It was a happier, gayer, 
freer, saner life that surrounded him. 

A point so centrally situated, though there may not 
have been a village of Nazareth in Sargon’s time, was too 
important strategically to allow any Israelite to be left 
there. It would have been a splendid post for recon¬ 
naissance over military movements throughout the whole 
Plain of Esdraelon, and therefore no place in which to 
permit an enemy to live. It is a long, long time from the 
days of Sargon to those of Christ, but its Gentile character 
is attested by the Jews themselves in their cynical remark, 
“Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Also, “Look 
and see; for out of Galilee Cometh no prophet”—ignoring 
Elisha, the field of Elijah’s labors, as well as Deborah, 
Jonah, Hosea and possibly Amos and Nahum, according 
to some authorities. 



Other Deportations 

The fortunes and misfortunes of the Kingdom of Judah 
must claim our attention at this point for the sake of 
clarity. After the deportation of the ten tribes by Sargon 

in 722 B. C. the magnificent realm of Solomon had shrunk 
to a miserable remnant consisting in the main of the tribe 
of Judah. These Judaeans, or Jews, as they came to be 
known in history, could point the finger of scorn at Jero¬ 
boam, “who made Israel to sin”—that is to say, he was 
so wicked in their eyes as to lead a rebellion of the ten 
tribes against the unbearable taxes imposed by the Judaeans 
for the upbuilding of Jerusalem. And he followed this up 
by establishing places of worship in the territory which 
had revolted—outside of Jerusalem, which the Jews con¬ 
sidered unorthodox; it is easy to see why—it cut off the 
revenues of Jerusalem to a sad degree. But Judaea’s turn 
came later, when the natives thereof were also overwhelmed 
and carried off into Babylonian captivity. Assyria had been 
overthrown by the rising power of Babylon in 606 B. C., 
and it was the King of Babylon who despoiled the treas¬ 
ures of Jerusalem and laid waste the land. Then was there 
lamentation in Jerusalem indeed, and the people of Samaria 
and Galilee are said to have enjoyed a delightful season 
of tranquility while the Jews were shut up in Babylon. 
About half a century later Babylon fell to Cyrus, the Per¬ 
sian, who permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem, and 
many, but by no means all of them, did so. Those who 
remained found that they could make money in Babylon 
even in captivity. Meanwhile some of them had found 
the northern nations a pleasant place of refuge, and in 
164 B. C. Simon Maccabee returned them all to Judaea, 
leaving Galilee strictly non-Jewish again. This was the 
second purging of the Jews from Galilee before the Chris- 



tian era. The racial differences between the Jews and the 
Galileans were too marked for the comfort of the latter, 

as one may see from the writings of Josephus, the Jewish 
historian, who about seventy years after the birth of Christ 
was the Roman governor of Galilee. That difference was 
remarkably well demonstrated after the fall of Jerusalem 
to Titus, when the Galileans, though defeated, clung to 
their homes. The Jews on the contrary agreed among 
themselves to scatter over the world, banded together as 
a predatory tribe, as one may read in their Talmud, thus 
contenting themselves with the role of an anti-national para¬ 
site. The Galileans were not parasitic stock. 

The Galileans as Proselytes 

We go back again to the year 722 B. C., and the deporta- 
tation of the ten tribes by Sargon. We do this to under¬ 
stand how and why and to what extent these strangers 
brought in by Sargon accepted the religion, and eventually 
the nationality of Judaism, though they were all Gentiles 
and predominantly Aryan in race. The seven and a half 
centuries that elapsed from that date to the birth of Christ 
is a very long period and many changes might occur in 
such an interim, even the conversion of an entire race to 
a new religion. Such things have happened in our own 
generation. In European history the same lapse of time 
would take us back beyond the days of Magna Charta in 
England, and two centuries before the fall of Constan¬ 
tinople to the Turk. Hence, it is by no means surprising 
that in a period of equal length these strangers imported 
into Galilee and Samaria—it was all Samaria at that time— 
became Judaised in religion and nationality—proselytes of 
the people whose homes they were forced to occupy, and 
whose empty synagogues stood open before them. Some 
measure of sympathy for the vanquished and dispossessed 



race may be imagined, for this was a beautiful land from 
which they had been evicted, and the fact that the dispos¬ 
sessed had seized it by violence some five hundred years 
earlier would scarcely be remembered against them. 

The Deus Loci 

A migrating people usually takes its religion with it, 

and thus did these colonists transplanted to the soil of 
Galilee. More than that, they kept them for centuries after¬ 
ward to the great annoyance of the Judaisers. Neverthe¬ 
less these raw immigrants would want to know who was 
“the god of the place, the deus loci” lest haply they might 
offend him unwittingly. There was nothing strange or un¬ 
usual in such an attitude for those times nor for their stage 
of development. Besides, these people had all the more 
reason to be cautious in the present instance, seeing that 
their predecessors had been removed by violence and they 
themselves installed in their homes. If they believed in 
“haunted houses,” here was an opportunity to meet with 
their ghosts. Moreover, they were strangers 1 to one an¬ 
other, brought from various regions and races of Assyria. 
And since some of the Israelites had been “placed in 
Halath and Habor by the River Gozan, and in the cities 
of the Medes 2 ,” this probably involved an exchange of 
populations with those places, and of these, be it remem¬ 
bered, many were Aryans, as were the Canaanites who 
inhabited Palestine before the arrival of the Hebrews. 

In such a situation, if any unusual manifestation of 
nature should occur among them it would hasten their 
appeal to the unknown power whom they imagined to be 
offended—and that is precisely what happened. Some of 

1— II Kings, 17:24. 

2— II Kings, 17:6. 



their people were attacked and killed by lions—therefore 
they reasoned, “the god of the place” was angry with them 
and must be appeased. Consequently they appealed to the 
King of Assyria in these words: 3 “The nations which 
thou hast removed (themselves) and placed in the cities 
of Samaria (it was all Samaria at that time), know not 

the manner of the god of the land: therefore he hath 

sent lions among them, and behold they slay them, because 

they know not the manner of the god of the land.” It 
was a clear case to these new arrivals in a strange land— 
the deus loci, whoever he might be, was offended and had 
to be placated. Now notice the consequences: “Then the 
King of Assyria commanded, saying, ‘Carry thither one 
of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them 
go and dwell there, and let them teach them the manner 

of the god of the land.’ ” This was done accordingly 

though with mixed results; for though they adopted the 
Hebrew worship, the narrator goes on to say that they 
did not lay aside their former religions altogether. That, 
indeed, was a proceeding that required time—centuries of 
time. And we need not suppose that the religion of the 
Hebrews was so vastly superior to their own, as the Hebrews 
would have us believe. However, long before the advent 
of Christ the people of Galilee and Samaria had become 
Judaised in religion and nationality. Even Jewish tra¬ 
ditions had been adopted in course of time, so that just 
as in America one may hear the children of new arrivals 
boast of “our Pilgrim Fathers,” so one of these could say 
to Christ, “Art thou greater than our Father Jacob, who 
gave us this well?” Our Father, Jacob, forsooth, and 
this from a Samaritan, not from a Jew! 

3—II Kings, 17:25-33. 



Jewish Compromising 

These new proselytes, the Galileans and Samaritans, 
were not inconsistent in adopting Judaism without first 
abjuring their former deities, for they were frankly poly¬ 
theistic. They kept their former religions, since there was 
nothing exclusive about them, and one deity more or less 

made no difference. From the monotheistic point of view 
it was quite a different matter. But why should these 
polytheists, or anybody else except a Jew, associate the 
idea of a patriarchal religion with that of a patriarchal 
inheritance, handed down to successive heirs like a piece 
of real estate which none but the direct descendants of the 
alleged patriarch might be presumed to inherit, except by 
special favor of the alleged inheritors. It must have seemed 
ridiculous even to men of primitive society if they had 
but a spark of humor about them. No wonder that the 
Hebrew prophets found these people in after times ex¬ 
tremely difficult to hold to such a belittling cult, and as a 
matter of fact their success in doing so was but nominal. 
There was no “Whosoever will may come” about it, in 
spite of all that the prophets might say, and they did their 
best to universalize it. Judaism as a world religion is a 
contradiction in terms. Had it been universal in character 
the Hebrews would not have been inconsistent in admitting 
these proselytes to an undivided allegiance. But how 
could the Hebrews admit them to an exclusive patrimony, 
and as a matter of fact, did they do so? Here was a 
stubborn biological fact confronting their narrow tradi¬ 
tional theology—a situation that demanded a compromise 
on the part of their religion, for it was plainly the latter 
that stood in the way of their material interests. And of 
course the Hebrews compromised. They always do in such 
a case. Their strength had been sadly depleted by the 



division of the kingdom, and later by the loss of the ten 
tribes. Besides there were the consequences of in-breeding 
to be considered. They would be vastly the gainers by 
this addition to their numbers provided that they could 
Judaise them, and this they tried desperately to do. The 

solution they adopted was as follows: they granted a 
factitious admission of these people to Judaism as “prose¬ 
lytes of the gate,” or “proselytes of justice,” which was 
as far as the stubborn fact of racial exclusiveness could 
be twisted to serve their ends. These strangers might 
become Judaists, but never Jews. 

It is by ignoring this distinction between Jews and 
Judaized that we fail to realize that the Galileans and 
Samaritans were of a different racial origin from the Jews . 
They were not Jews at all, but Gentiles, and mostly Aryan 
Gentiles like ourselves. Many of them, as we know, could 
never be Judaised in religion, but remained outside of the 
Jewish cult. A helpful analogy may be found in the case 
of the Highland Celts of Scotland and the Anglo-Saxons 
of England—of the same nationality and of the Christian 
religion, but of different racial origin. Circumstances 
made the Galileans and the Jews neighbors, and eventually 
partners in the same political state with a capital in com¬ 
mon. They had the same enemies to fight on many occa¬ 
sions, and sometimes there was civil war between them. 
Josephus tells us that a religious fervor overspread the 
land as did a patriotic fervor in the days of the Maccabees. 
Josephus greatly admired them and left this testimony 
concerning them: 

“They are inured to war from their infancy, and have 
always been very numerous; nor hath the country ever 
been destitute of men of courage, nor wanted a numerous 
set of them.” He says, “It is a sturdy race, and has 



developed a fervid patriotism and a nationalistic spirit— 
a hill people, lovers of liberty and ready defenders of 
their homes.” Does this read like a description of the 
Jewish race? And these are the people that were despised 
by those of Jerusalem as “boorish,” because, among other 
things, they could not or would not pronounce the deep 
gutturals of the Hebrew language, known among philolo¬ 
gists as the “pigs’ whistle.” 

Even the Talmud is quoted as saying that “The Gali¬ 
leans 1 were more anxious for honor than for money,” 
while “the contrary was true of Judaea.” “Their fidelity, 
often unreasoning and ill tempered, was always sincere.” 
“It is often taken for granted that the Galilee of our Lord’s 
day was a new land with an illegitimate people—without 
history, without traditions”—a notion inspired by “the 
spitfire pride of Judaea.” At bottom it was dictated by 
Jewish envy of Galilee’s natural resources, and the superior 
contacts she enjoyed with the outside world. Galilee’s 
“customs and laws, even on such important matters as 
marriage and intercourse with the heathen, her coins and 
weights, her dialect, were all sufficiently different from 
those of Judaea to excite popular sentiment in the latter, and 
provide the scribes with some quotable reasons for their 


It is begging the question for anyone to assert that 
Christ was of the Jewish race. The contrast of His character 
with that of the Jewish background establishes a presump¬ 
tion that differentiates Him utterly, even if only the human 
aspect is considered. But historically speaking, twice was 
Galilee purged of the Jews before the advent of Christ, 
and we learn from Josephus half a century after that event 

1—George Adam Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land, pp. 422-423. 



that the Galileans were a different kind of people from 
those of Judaea—a fact attested by the Jews themselves. 
We know that the the aboriginal stock of Palestine was 
Aryan, or Canaanite, as the Jews called them, centuries 
before the birth of the hypothetical Abraham, to whom the 
Hebrews absurdly claimed that all Palestine had been 
promised by their own racial deity. We know that when 
Sargon deported the ten tribes of Israel he brought other 
Aryans and Semites to replace them, but no Jews. We are 
aware of the probability that both Scythians and Gauls 
made their racial contribution to Galilee. We know that 
Simon Maccabee in 164 B. C. made a second purging of 
the Jews from Galilee, and that racial animosities kept 
them apart thereafter. But more than all other influences 
combined was that of the Greeks, who not only settled the 
Decapolis, but permeated western Galilee, surrounding 
Nazareth with their cities, and completely Grecianizing 
all the maritime coast of what had been Phoenicia and 
Philistia. It was all “Galilee of the Gentiles,” in the 
words of Isaiah, the prophet, who wrote as a Jew living 

in Jerusalem. 

It is not necessary for anyone, whether American, 
British, French, German, Russian or Galilean, to claim 
that they are not Jews. That much is taken for granted 
whenever those nationalities are mentioned. Besides, the 
distinction between ourselves and the Jews is emphasized 
on both sides, and still more by nature herself. So where 
is the justice or the justification in the claim of the Jew, 
and the Ebionite, ancient or modern, that Christ was of 
that perpetually alien race? It is obviously an assump¬ 
tion contrary to fact, and the burden of proof, if proof 
be necessary, rests upon those who would foist this age- 
old heresy upon us. In the light of our historical data 



it i9 childish to appeal to family records, as if to circum¬ 
scribe Almighty God within the limits of the human ex¬ 
igencies of birth and death. And when those records 
disagree, and wholly ignore the Mother of Christ (see next 
chapter), they are worse than childish. 

And there is still more to add: for the antipathy be¬ 
tween Jews and Galileans was greater than usual. Christ, 
as we learn, was once returning from Jerusalem through 
Samaria, when he was mistaken for a Jew and was told 
that “the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” 
At another time He marveled when He beheld “an Israel¬ 
ite, indeed, in whom is no guile,” and we like to think 
that He said this smiling. Do we need to be told that He 
knew how guileful they were? Instances are numerous 
throughout the New Testament where the racial differences 
come to the surface. And on the Jewish part, all this is 
corroborated by the Talmud itself, which records a racial 
taboo against the peoples of the north, as will be found 
in the last chapter of this book. Surely it is a monstrous 
perversion of the truth—this claim that Christ was a Jew 
—that is now being used by Jews and modern Ebionites 
to the incredible damage of Christ’s mission to all the 
world. Says a recent authority, 1 “Whoever makes the 
assertion that Christ was a Jew is either ignorant or in¬ 
sincere: ignorant when he confuses race and religion; 
insincere when he knows the history of Galilee, and partly 
conceals, partly distorts the very entangled facts in favor 
of his religious prejudices, or it may be, to curry favor 
with the Jews. The probability that Christ was no Jew, 
that He had not a drop of genuinely Jewish blood in 

1—Houston Stewart Chamberlain, “Foundations of the XIX Century,” 

p. 211. 



His veins, is so great that it is almost equivalent to a 
certainty 2 .” 

(N. B.—In the foregoing pages Christ has been con¬ 
sidered merely as the Son of Man in order to present His 
human aspect to Gentiles in general, since this is pri¬ 
marily a historical presentation, rather than theological.) 

J. E. C. 

2—Everyone among us has had a possible maximum of over a million 
ancestors in the twenty generations preceding him. From what or 
how many different races they came makes little difference in the 
final summation in himself, except in the most recent among them. 



PART ONE — Chapter II 

The outstanding fact in the world’s history is that 
CHRIST CAME. That event marked the beginning of 
this era. We reckon time both backward and forward 

therefrom. Its significance is acknowledged the world 
around. Why then, should Gentiles, and especially Chris¬ 
tians, allow that supreme fact to be swallowed up among 
the traditions of Judaism? 

It should go without saying that in whatsoever part 
of the world He appeared, and among whatsoever kind 
of people, there must needs be a local background from 
which He must escape , in order to belong to the whole 
world and not to any one people. He must of necessity 
generalize Himself as the “Son of Man,” as He usually 
called Himself. If He had been of the Jewish race it 
would merely have contributed to the insufferable arro¬ 
gance of that unfriendly and unneighborly people—a 
people with a past to be apologized for perpetually. If 
it was a part of divine wisdom that He appeared in the 
midst of Judaism, the uncongenial background must be 
the explanation therefor, by way of contrast to His divinity. 

Many of the earliest Christians, not yet emerged from 
the cult of Judaism, could not conceive of Him as a prod¬ 
uct of the universe with a universal message to mankind. 
This mistaken view left its impress on the record they 
gave us concerning Him, as we must see later. The early 
Christians, because of their lack of perspective, deserve 
forgiveness for their nearsightedness. But how is it 
possible for any Christian today to betray Christ to Jewish 
pride, arrogance and duplicity, after all these years, these 



centuries of evidence, that He did not and does not belong 
to the Jewish race! Is it not a libel on the might and 
majesty of Almighty God to maintain that Christ could 

appear only as a member of one certain race and in con¬ 
formity with its traditions? There is no impious intent 
to question Divine Wisdom as to the place where He 
actually did appear, but it is intended, most emphatically , 
to question the wisdom or Christian loyalty of those who 
would tell us that there only, in Palestine, and among 
those who call themselves the “chosen people” of an ex¬ 
clusive racial deity, could Christ have visited mankind. 
Such a conclusion is monstrous—a blasphemy against 
divine wisdom, power and universality. Christ as a Unique 
Being was too far above those who were about Him to be 
brought down completely to earth, and rarely while He 
was among them did they catch sight of the magnitude and 
significance of His mission. He had constantly to remind 
them that He was the “Son of Man,” while bringing to 
earth a new religion, which was not shut up within a 
racial cult. 

Three things these earliest Christians did—just as many 
of us might have done—in order to articulate this NEW 
RELIGION with their own personal and historic past: 
First, they appealed to the Jewish messiah tradition, natu¬ 
rally enough, since they were either Jews or Judaised; 
Second, they went back to Jewish prophecies, just as a 
Greek might have gone back to Greek prophecies had He 
been born in Greece; and Third, they foisted upon the 
record those two conflicting genealogies—and with that 
they broke down completely. All this is explained more 
fully in the final pages of the following chapter. 

The Messiah of the Gentiles 

Christians have no need of a messiah in the Jewish 



sense—they never were promised a messiah. Let the Jews 
get what comfort they can out of that doctrine, it is theirs 
exclusively. The Jewish national tradition of a glorified 
general and statesman, a Moses and Joshua combined, with 
other superlatives superadded, is, so far as Gentiles are 
concerned, a hideous anachronism; for why should we 
be concerned with the national ambitions of Judaism! It 
is hideous because it ties Christianity back to a Jewish 
past that is unrelated to the remainder of mankind. 
CHRIST CAME—“the Son of the Living God,” as Peter 
called Him, and we Gentiles need no more. And what 
need had He to be foretold by Hebrew prophets—yes, by 
Greek or Persian prophets, or anyone else whatsoever? 
These earliest Christians who assembled the New Testa¬ 
ment canon could not escape their Judaistic background, 
and only Christ could do so. They were a long time get¬ 
ting rid of it, and most of them never did. In fact, there 
are many today who, if they would but frankly submit 
to it, would find upon self-examination that they them¬ 
selves are as much Judaised as they are Christianized. 
It is such persons who are put to confusion when they 
call themselves the “heirs of the promises made to the 
Jews,” which promises the Jews have rejected. For now 
the modern Jew appears among them and says by his 
presence, “Here am I, the legitimate heir of those ancient 
promises—the heir expectant of the Messiah to come. 
Thou shalt not steal mine own inheritance.” And what 
are they who consider themselves the heirs presumptive of 
this alleged inheritance to say to that? What some of 
them are saying by their actions is that they will make 
terms, so to speak, with the original claimant, the Jew, 
and thus win their way to the favor of the Jewish Jahveh, 
whom they absurdly claim as their own—the deity of a 
race alien to Christ and the Gentiles. It is thus that they 



put Christ to shame by yielding to the falsehood that His 
gospel is of Jewish origin, a rejected dogma of Judaism, 

the same identical religion and the same deity with that 
of the Jews, and with no purer ethics than those of the 
Jews today. Anyone who goes that far has no right to 
call himself a Christian, and the Apostle Paul has told 
him all about it in what he said to the Galatians who had 
become Judaised. “Well, if God is a Jew, what have we 
got to do with your religion?” said an outspoken Gentile 
in response to such doctrine. Is it any wonder that the 
preaching of a Judaised Christ is ruinous to the church 
of today? 

Prophecy and Prophesying 

One of the commonest errors made by the modern Bible 
student is the misinterpretation of the words “prophet” 
and “prophecy” and the verb “to prophesy.” Even some 
of our English dictionaries are misleading as to the sig¬ 
nificance of these words, for they connect them with the 
office of foretelling the future as the primary meaning. 
That, indeed, is the secondary meaning, to be chosen only 
when it is inescapable. The primary meaning has to do 
with explaining, advocating and warning. Thus, any 
preacher may be a prophet in the primary sense of the 
word, if not in the secondary sense. But people love 
mysteries and are ready to construe everything possible to 
have been foretold by a prophet. With these facts in 
mind it is well to read very carefully the references in 
the New Testament to all alleged prophetic utterances. 
The eagerness of the earliest Christians to turn every pos¬ 
sible text to their support, especially to prove to the 
Judaised that Christianity was a continuation of their 
former faith instead of a new religion, is quite under¬ 
standable but it is woefully misleading. We have no need 



of prophecies, whether or not they were genuine forecasts. 
CHRIST CAME—with the weight of His character, His 

authority, His message as the Son of God, and we slight 
this supreme event to give homage to an alleged fore¬ 
shadowing thereof. 

The Genealogies 

Of the “synoptic gospels,” Matthew, Mark and Luke, 
the gospel of Mark is now accounted the earliest in point 
of composition, dating somewhere near the year 65 A. D. 
By that time the work of Peter and Paul and thousands 
of others had been crowned with martyrdom. The gospels 
of Matthew and Luke, profiting apparently by what Mark 
had recorded, came but little later. It is only these two 
later gospels that record the genealogies,” for neither Mark 
nor John mention any genealogy of Christ. And these 
two as given, do not 1 agree. In fact, they are totally irrec¬ 
oncilable, except in the part which a historian must classify 
as legendary, and not history at all. Now any genealogy 
in order to be valid must not be wrong at any point. And 
since these two genealogies do not agree, how can we 
accept either one of them? Fortunately, it does not matter 
in the least; for the mission of Christ is to the whole world, 

1—The two genealogies are given herewith, Luke’s being in reverse 
order for convenience in comparing. 



Metthew Luke Matthew Luke 

















































































































and is not simply a family concern, nor even a dynastic 
Hebrew nor racial concern. One can imagine the divine 
scorn, or pity, over the futile attempt to trace His lineage, 
Jewish fashion, back to the House of David, which had 
perished long before, then onto the legendary Abraham, to 
say nothing of the mythical Adam, and finally to arrive at 
—nothing at all! What a poor, cheap farce is all this 
trumpery about the genealogy that omits the mother of 
Christ! And after all, it is only a belittling attempt to 
circumscribe God Himself within human bounds. It is 
too transparent to deceive. 1 CHRIST CAME—that is 

Gentile Testimony to the Advent 

Testimony to the advent of Christ is not limited to the 
New Testament writers, nor even to the “church fathers,” 
as anyone may find by consulting the following named 

First , Flavius Josephus, a Latinized Jew, a Roman governor 
of Galilee, the best known of the ancient Jewish his¬ 
torians (37—95 A. D.). 

Second , Tacitus, Roman historian (55—120 A. D.). 

Third , Pliny the younger, Roman historian (112—? A. D.). 
Fourth , Suetonius, Roman historian (70?—140? A. D.). 
Fifth, Lucian, Greek Essayist (middle of second century, 
A. D.). 

The testimony of these and all like them is all the 
more weighty because it is unwilling or even hostile. They 
saw the amazing spread of Christianity, “like a pestilence,” 
as one of them put it, sweeping away every vestige of their 
native Greeko-Roman religion. Naturally they were dis¬ 
turbed and antagonistic, the more so because they associated 
it with its background of Judaism. 

1—See final pages of next chapter. 



Among moderns 2 the following comments upon Christ 
may be cited thus: 

Thomas Carlyle: “Jesus of Nazareth is our divinest 
symbol; higher has human thought not yet reached; a 
symbol of quite perennial infinite character.” 

J. J. Rousseau: “For men to invent such a sublime 
character would make the inventors more wonderful than 
the being they portray.” 

Goethe: “I esteem the gospels to be thoroughly genu¬ 
ine, for there shines forth from them a reflected splendor 
of sublimity proceeding from the person of Christ, of so 
divine a kind, as only the Divine could ever have mani¬ 
fested upon earth.” 

Fichte: “There is no man of sense who will not bow 
before this astonishing phenomenon.” 

Richter, J. P.: “The life of Christ concerns Him, 
who, being the holiest among the Mighty, lifted with His 
pierced hands empires off their hinges, turned the stream 
of centuries out of its course, and still governs the ages.” 

Napoleon I: “Jesus Christ was not a man; there is be¬ 
tween Him and all others the distance of infinity. Conceive 
Caesar ruling the empire from the depths of his mausoleum, 
yet for Christ there are millions who would die.” 

The Mission Begins 

Christ’s advent and entrance upon His mission was 
meteoric. Manifestly it could not begin till He had grown 
to maturity, when He suddenly appeared on the banks of 
the Jordan, seeking baptism at the hands of John. We 
pass over in silence His earlier life, not only because it 
is vague and incomplete, but because it is His life among 
men that revealed His character and mission, demonstrat¬ 
ing the absolute uniqueness of the new religion, and the 

2—Prof. S. M. Woodbridge, D.D., L.L.D. 



glaring contrast between Himself and all His surroundings. 
It was fitting that His “forerunner” should be the first to 
recognize and announce Him to the world. This wild man 
from the desert, this unordained priest of Almighty God, 
acknowledging no earthy authority, at once recognized 
the summons of his Master and obeyed Him. 

Christ’s manifestation of unusual power was not con¬ 
fined to the miracles. Whenever He said to a man, “Follow 
thou me,” the one addressed left all and followed Him, 
and he did not stop to ask why. His authority was com¬ 
pelling. “He spoke as never man 9poke.” He did not 
choose to put forth that power on all occasions—in fact, 
but seldom; for it would have been fatal to the spirituality 
of His message, which was His chief concern. He taught 
His own doctrines without special reference to Moses and 
the prophets for authority, though He sometimes adduced 
these in His own support for the benefit of His hearers. 
His doctrines originated with Himself—“but I say unto 
you”—or more often in conjunction with the Father in 
Heaven with Whom He was in instant communication. 
He did not once mention the Jewish names for the deity, 
“Elohim, Adonai or Jahveh.” Nevertheless, to this day 
there are those who can not but believe that Christianity 
is only a continuation of the Jewish religion with certain 
additions that are peculiarly Christian! What fatal non¬ 
sense is this? An imposter in His place would not have 
dared to flout the authority of Moses and the prophets, 
nor to invite comparisons with them; yet Christ, speaking 
to the scribes and Pharisees, asking for a “sign,” told them 
that “a greater than Jonas,” and “a greater than Solomon is 
here.” Had He been only the Son of Man, with no more 
authority than that of a wandering teacher of righteous¬ 
ness, as modern Jewry would have us believe, they would 
have stoned Him to death for that saying. His attitude 



toward the best that the past had to give, including Moses, 
the law and the prophets, was scarcely more than a respect¬ 
ful indifference. At the same time, for those who had not 
yet abandoned the old nor chosen “the more excellent 

way,” He merely counseled compliance with the old. Men 
realized as they never did before that when He did speak 
with authority there was the combined weight of the whole 
universe behind His words. The positive conviction and 
assurance of His message and personality were His heavenly 
credentials. Whatever He called Himself, that, indeed, 
He was, let them say what they will of the miraculous 
birth to account for His presence among men. 

It may be said that the scribes and Pharisees did ques¬ 
tion His authority. Yes, and so did the devil in the temp¬ 
tation in the desert. That was their business, and they 
were answered on each and every occasion. But their 
object was merely to win a point in an argument, and 
had little, if anything, to do with the search for truth. 
The real significance of these parleys lies in the fact that 
both the scribes and the devil appealed to tradition—“For 
is it not written,” etc.—betraying a slavish adherence to 
the past that is typical of Judaism. Christ’s mentality con¬ 
trasts so vividly with a static-mindedness, a backward¬ 
looking type of mind, that this distinction alone divides 
Him from the Jewish race. It is utterly irrational to 
assume that He could have been evolved from a race with 
a hide-bound concept of morality, of ethics, of deity and 
humanity and their relations to each other. Even without 
the support of history, this is a difference which alone 
would lift Him immeasurably above the level of those 
whose only moral guidance was, “Thus it is written.” His 
mentality was alive and unbound. It was not derived from 
Judaism, but in spite of it. 



To disciples like Thomas, Christ must have been a per¬ 
petual puzzle, whom they followed because of His com¬ 
pelling influence. For the disciples, like all whom they 
knew, were looking for the messiah, a Joshua or David, 
or a deity more resplendent than either, to deliver them 
from their latest conqueror, the Romans. There were others 
who pretended to be that leader and they were one and all 
brought to defeat. But here was one who was evidently 
endowed with superhuman power—fitted to be that longed- 
for leader, but He would not have it so. He did not bother, 
about statecraft or politics or military leadership or nation¬ 
alism—no nor religious institutions as He found them. He 
accepted things pretty much as they were—and used them. 
He came to fight sin, and sin is a personal, an individual 
matter, and therefore to individuals He addressed Himself. 
Had He been an enemy to Judaism, both national and 
religious, He would have had a right, nevertheless, to make 
use of their public institutions, so long as He did not seek 
illegally to overthrow them. He sought to dethrone sin 
in the human heart, and the “scribes, Pharisees and hypo¬ 
crites” opposed Him. 

He went into the synagogues everywhere, as He had 
a right to do, because these were the “town halls” of the 
public. It was thus that He went into the synagogue of 
His own home town, Nazareth, and when He had announced 
Himself in the chosen text, “The spirit of the Lord is upon 
me,” they were ready to murder Him. Why? Because 
He was in no sense the military messiah they were looking 
for, besides He had grown up right there among them. He 
had only proclaimed His real mission on earth, but either 
the message was too stupendous for their comprehension, 
or too pretentious in their opinion for their cherished ideal 
—a military leader. Those Galileans, according to Jose¬ 
phus—and he knew them well—were a hot-headed lot, and 



they did not stop at halfway measures. Simple-minded 
as they were, they needed a miracle to stun their faculties 
into a receptive mood, so miracles they should have. 
This was with evident reluctance on the part of Christ, for 
the rebound was inevitable toward the opposite extreme. 
The rebound came and it grew immeasurably. Now, indeed, 
He must be the longed-for messiah, for who else could do 
such wonders! They would not have it otherwise, so they 
followed Him in thousands, were fed miraculously, were 
cured of all sorts of diseases, and, incidentally, hindered 
His mission by converting it embarrassingly into a materi¬ 
alized service to mankind—useful to be sure, but ephem¬ 
eral in results. It brought Him the publicity that He did 
not want, for how was He to convey a spiritual message to 
mankind while thousands were flocking around Him with 
their sick, or looking for some new miracle, or perhaps 
hoping for the loaves and fishes! He did what He could 
to avoid it, saying, “See thou tell no man,” or “Go show 
yourselves to the priests”; and other means failing He 
crossed over the Sea of Galilee, or went up into the moun¬ 
tain, or preached to them from a boat. Had He been the 
expected messiah He would have welcomed all this publicity 
instead of shunning it. Each new marvel of healing was 
forced upon Him, for when His sympathies were touched 
He could not refuse. He deplored and reproved their 
“looking for a sign,” a trick, a magical portent, a miracle, 
to prove that He was the expected messiah. He was the 
victim of His own popularity, which handicapped Him, 
except when He was alone with His disciples. He sought 
to break with tradition—with family, even—aye, what 
cared He for genealogies—in order to identify Himself 
with the immaterial, the spiritual world which He came 
to reveal. His message was of the future and for the 
future, and it came fresh from the fountain-head of Divine 



Wisdom. He stood alone, on His own ground as the Son 
of God, who was also the Son of Man, and He needed not 
the dubious foundation of the Hebrew messiah legend to 
sanction His message to mankind. 

It is the axiomatic that is hardest to prove. Thus His 
teachings were too simple to be readily comprehended, or 
they would have put to silence the clamorings about the 
messiahship, the chief obstacle to His mission. He was 
obliged, finally, to tolerate the excited admiration of the 
crowd, for it was easier to put up with it than to spend 
so much valuable time and effort in evading it. In the 
presence of a calling inconceivably greater than any that 
they knew, He devoted His attention to that calling and 
took less pains to disabuse them of their messianic frenzy. 
After all, He was far more than the messiah they were 
looking for, so He did what He could to spiritualize their 
misconception of His mission, though it was bound to 
prove fatal to Him in the end. Granting His right to 
spiritual dominion over all the world—and He claimed no 
less—the Jewish messiahship was inconsequential. Out¬ 
side of Judaism it mattered not to the rest of mankind if 
the Jewish messiah never came. If Jesus Christ fitted into 
their doctrines it was a matter for their concern only. It 
is altogether beside the mark for anyone to drag in a lot 
of remote prophecies in a vain attempt to prove that He 
was the messiah that the Jews were looking for. What He 
said, and did, and especially what He was when here, is 
enough. If anyone finds it unconvincing, let him go to 
the synagogue. What more could prophets do to establish 
Christ’s authority and authenticity? 

What Said Christ About His Messiahship? 

It is not upon record, except upon the questionable 
testimony of one witness, that Christ ever claimed that He 



was the Jewish messiah, and even so, there was no inti¬ 
mation that it was in a military or political sense. It 
was in the conversation with the woman at the well of 
Samaria. She was one to whom He had told the plain 
and unpalatable truth about her life, as she immediately 
confessed. No others were present, for the disciples had 
gone to the village to buy food, and were much surprised 
on their return to see Him talking with her. It is not the 
least likely that He reported the conversation—it was not 
like Him to do so—and “nobody asked Him a word.” 
But the woman reported the conversation in the village 
in an excited manner, and we have no other evidence that 
He said just what she declared. Hence, we have it only 
on hearsay, and that from a doubtful source, that He ever 
said, “I that speak unto thee am He,” meaning the Jewish 
messiah. Besides, the woman threw doubt on her own 
testimony by raising a question about it. It must be 
stated, also, that neither of the “synoptic gospels” mentions 
the incident. It must be dismissed therefore as incon¬ 

On the contrary, there were at least three different 
occasions, with several persons present, when Christ, by 
imputation, repudiated the Jewish messiahship. “What 
think ye of Christ—whose son is He?” This question He 
addressed to some Pharisees who, being orthodox Judaists, 
were committed to the strictly legalistic view, so they 

promptly replied, “He is the son of David.” Christ im¬ 
mediately challenged that statement and refuted it out of 
David’s own testimony, and, as we are told, “No man 

was able to answer Him a word.” 

On another occasion, speaking to His disciples, He 
asked them, “Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, 

am?” They replied to the effect that some say one thing 

and some another, but it is noticeable that they do not say 



the messiah. Then He asked His disciples plainly, “But 
whom say ye that I am?” He gets His answer plainly 
from the blunt and outspoken Peter: “Thou art Christ, 
the Son of the living God.” And Peter did not say the 
son of David, as did the Pharisees. Peter got a well- 
deserved blessing for that answer, and why? Because as 
Christ tells him at once, Peter did not get that knowledge 
from any man , but “from My Father, Which is in Heaven.” 
Nothing about the Jewish Jahveh, nothing from Moses and 
the prophets, nothing from tradition, and nothing from the 
sacrosanct laws of Judaism, but a direct revelation from 
the Father through the Son. Peter is the first of whom 
we have any record that he did not repeat the customary 
palaver about the national hero, the son of David, that 
the Jews were looking for, and Christ saw that He was 
the first to discern and state the truth unequivocally. 

The third occasion has to do with John the Baptist, 
who had been in prison during most of Christ’s ministry, 
and therefore could not have been fully informed about 
it. John was alone and disconsolate, with very good 
reason to apprehend that his end was near. Dark and 
foreboding thoughts must have beset him when he sent 
this message to Christ: “Art Thou He that should come, 
or look we for another?” It was a question that deserved 
a frank categorical yes or no. In plain speech Christ was 
asked by this man who had risked his life in the cause of 
righteousness, “Are You the messiah or not?” And Christ 
did not answer yes or no. How could He? He was not 
the national hero, if that was John’s question, as it prob¬ 
ably was. Shut up in prison and not in close contact with 
Christ’s ministry, John could not be expected to have any 
other than the traditional concept of the messiah. Would 
there have been any other point to John’s inquiry other¬ 
wise? Hence, Christ did not and could not say He was 



the messiah, which would have meant that He claimed to 
be the national hero—the very thing He had been repudi¬ 
ating and resisting all the time. Again, Christ could not 
have been so indelicate as to assume in His reply that 
John’s question implied a doubt as to His own authen¬ 
ticity, for neither of them could have forgotten the mem¬ 
orable scene at the baptism in Jordan. His real mission 
as opposed to that of Jewish nationalism must have escaped 
John’s clear realization, and that, indeed, seems to have 
been the basis of Christ’s reply. And furthermore, it is 
delicately aimed to support the sorely tried faith of John, 
poor man, who probably realized that the end of his life 
work was at hand, and he needed to be assured that it had 
not been in vain. Christ’s reply followed the dictum that 
“actions speak louder than words”—“Go tell John that 
the blind see, the lame walk,” etc., and “blessed is he, 
whosoever shall not be offended in Me.” There, indeed, 
was answer enough, ending with just the mildest sugges¬ 
tion of a rebuke that John might take to himself if he 
chose. Then followed that wonderful panegyric on John, 
showing that Christ thought none the less of him for being 
straightforward and outspoken on a matter of vital im¬ 
portance. The pathos of the situation moved Him might¬ 
ily. But in such a situation had it been possible for Christ 
to have said, positively and defintely, “Yes, I am the 
Messiah, the One the Jews are expecting,” He must needs 
have said it to John without any equivocation or evasion. 
It was a straightforward, honest question that meant more 
than life or death to John, and Christ submitted His own 
record as an answer, an answer that spoke for itself. 

Christ’s Attitude Toward the Gentiles 

What was Christ’s attitude toward the Gentiles as dis¬ 
tinct from His attitude toward the Jews? In answering 



this question it is to be remembered that the terms 
“Gentile” and “Jew” were Jewish categories, and that 
Christ did not include Himself in either. He being a 
Galilean, however, the point is settled objectively. It is 
to be noted next that both terms are used with a varying 
significance, which leads to a confusion as to the thought 
to be conveyed. For insetance, “Gentile,” when applied 
to the Romans, their latest conquerors, has a hostile sig¬ 
nificance, whereas it is neighborly in portent when applied 
to the Greeks, Sidonians and Phoenicians. But there is 
a third classification which includes the proselytes to 

Judaism, the Galileans and Samaritans, who were looked 
upon as “poor relations” by the bigots of Jerusalem. 
Neither the arrogance of Judea nor the independence and 
self-respect of the Galileans would tolerate the name Jew 
to be so misapplied, though the cult of Judaism was accepted 
by those outside of the Jewish race. Hence, when Christ 
said to His disciples, “For after all these things do the 
Gentiles seek,” they naturally thought, as He did, of them¬ 
selves as Judaised, and therefore not followers of the cult 
of their Gentile neighbors. The mistake is all our own 
when we take it for granted that this identifies them with 
the Jewish race. They would have resented that imputa¬ 
tion as other Gentiles do. 

This confusion in the use of terms is illustrated in 
Paul’s use of the category of “Jew,” which, strictly 
speaking, could include only a descendant of Judah. Paul 
repeatedly speaks of himself as a Jew when he must have 
meant that he was of the Jewish cult, for we know that 
he was of the tribe of Benjamin. The close association 
of the half tribe of Benjamin with the tribe of Judah 
could not make him a genuine Jew. 



Was There a Change in His Attitude Toward the 

The various classifications mentioned above forbid 
generalization. Christ certainly found Gentiles of all 

classes less obdurate than were the Jews, and more free 
from the bondage of tradition. They were more capable 
of looking facts in the face and drawing their own con¬ 
clusions. In the first recorded instance of His spiritual 
contact with the Gentiles—the centurion and the servant 
—Christ “marveled,” and He said, “I have not found so 
great faith, no not in Israel” (Judaism). Was He sur¬ 
prised—was He correctly reported—was He still under 
the influence of His early days? It does not agree with 
His character and history to say that He was surprised, 
nor is it reasonable to suppose that His early training 
was predominant at this period. In any case, the com¬ 
pilers of the New Testament canon some forty years later 
must be held accountable for the correctness of the nar¬ 
rative. None of these suppositions will suffice. It was 
an outburst of gratitude, and a realization of the demon¬ 
strated power of the spirit that He constantly preached, 
and the fact that it was generic with all mankind. 

The Greek or Syro-Phoenician Woman 

As one reads and ponders over this narrative the 
wonder grows that so much of the divinity of Christ shone 
through and was transcribed, in spite of the density of the 
transmitting medium. The woman was begging Christ to 
heal her daughter. “Send her away, for she crieth after 
us,” said the disciples. Was Christ indifferent to her 
appeal? So it would seem from the record, but who can 
believe that He was? Such a conclusion is inconsistent 
with His character and also with the sequel of the inter¬ 
view. It is inconsistent with the universality of His gos- 



pel, but it is not inconsistent with the “chosen race” fetish 
that still held the disciples in its clutches, as it did the 
Ebionites who compiled the canon of the New Testament. 
These might innocently enough have interpolated their own 
views into the narrative some forty years later. It is also 
possible that there were omitted details that would justify 
a modified construction to be placed upon Christ’s reported 
reference to the “dogs,” but the record as it stands is 
indefensible when judged in the light of His character. 
For by her sweetly contrasting humility and her persever¬ 
ance she gained her point, and the undying commendation, 
“Oh, woman, great is thy faith. Be it unto thee even as 
thou wilt.” No one can doubt that those were the words 
of Christ, whatever may be his conclusion as to the pre¬ 
ceding dialogue and its authenticity. 

Two references are to be found where the word Gentiles 
is clearly used to designate the Romans, and therefore it is 
employed with neither kindness nor hostility. He simply 
told His disciples what the Romans would do to Him—that 
He would be arrested, mocked, scouraged and crucified by 
them. And all this was said without rancor as if He did 
not hold the Romans culpable, as indeed they were not. 
Again He told them that in contrast with the Gentiles 
(the Romans, of course), “Whosoever will be great among 
you, let him be your minister.” That was a stunning doc¬ 
trine, for up to the latest moment they had been debating 
among themselves as to who should be greatest in the 
kingdom they expected Him to establish forthwith. The 
great vision had not dawned upon them at the Last Supper, 
when, to teach them what He meant, He humbled Himself 
to a menial task by washing their feet. And they didn’t 
get it even then. It took the Crucifixion and the Resurrec¬ 
tion to tell the whole story. But the point we are after 
here is that the hostile sense of the word “Gentile” as 



applied to the Romans naturally aroused a distaste for 
the word as applied to themselves, the Galileans and 
Samaritans, who shared the fortunes of war with their 
Jewish compatriots. 

The First Missionaries 

Another scene stands out vividly in Christ’s ministry 
demanding an explanation. He had finished choosing His 
twelve disciples, and He called them together for final 

instructions before sending them forth without their Master. 
He did not tell them much about what to say—as given 
in the record—but He did tell them where to go, what 
to do, and what to expect in return. “Go not into the way 
of the Gentiles (Romans, probably), and into any city 
of the Samaritans enter ye not but go rather to the lost 
sheep of the House of Israel. * * * Heal the sick, 
cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils, freely 
ye have received, freely give. Provide neither silver nor 
gold, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, 
neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves, for the 
work-man is worthy of his meat.” Then He told them 
that He was sending them forth “as sheep among wolves,” 
and He told them to beware of them, and He warned them 
of all the terrible things that might befall them. It was 
enough to terrify strong-hearted men, but, as He reminded 
them, the disciple was not above his Lord, and doubtless 
He remembered the early days of His ministry when they 
threatened to throw Him down a precipice in His own 
home town. 

What does all this mean, and why “first to the lost 
sheep of the House of Israel?” One may like to think 
of Him as saying this with a smile, since He knew by this 
time what kind of sheep they were likely to be, and besides 
He soon changed the figure from sheep to wolves, when 



He warned them of what was in store for them. In fact, 
He was sending them out on this first missionary journey, 
chiefly, we may assume, to test them, and it was just the 
right time to give them the toughest kind of a job, so He 
sent them among the Jews, which those who wrote the 
record may have mistaken for a mark of preference for 
the aforesaid “sheep.” If there were any quitters among 
the disciples, this was the time and the method of sifting 
them out. And it is worth remembering that Judas Iscariot 
was among them. Go to those “stiff-necked,” self-righteous 
people as the prophets had so often called them, and do 
what you can for them. You are going right down through 
Samaria, but don’t stop there. Give the Jews the first 
chance, for it is their country you are going to begin with, 
and Samaria and Galilee are right at hand all the time. 
If you succeed in Judea you ought to do much better nearer 
home. Take not a bit of money with you, but earn your 
way, no extra clothing, nor even a stick to lean upon or 
to drive off the dogs and wolves. If the wolves attack 
you, run for your lives. Waste no time on the unappre¬ 
ciative, “cast not your pearls before swine,” but find others 
who are more worthy. They have the first call on your 
services, and I send you forth with all My healing power. 
—Such, in paraphrase, was the divine commission to the 
twelve disciples on their first foreign missionary journey 
to the Jews. For it certainly was foreign from Christ’s 
standpoint, and His commission to the disciples reads that 
way. It was what one might call a tough assignment, but 
they returned from the mission rejoicing that “even the 
devils were subject to them”—a triumph that did not elecit 
much praise from the Master. It is not recorded that they 
made any converts on this first missionary enterprise. 

Throughout Christ’s ministry He found frequent occa¬ 
sion to praise the Gentiles, contrasting them with their 



Jewish neighbors, sometimes to the disadvantage of the 
latter. There were ten lepers cleansed, and only one 

returned to give thanks, and he was a Samaritan. “Many 
widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, but unto none 
of these was Elias sent but unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, 
unto a woman that was a widow.” And “many lepers 
were in Israel in the days of Eliseus, the prophet, and none 
of them was cleansed saving Naaman, the Syrian,” And 
then there were those mighty woes pronounced against 
Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernaum—all cities of Galilee— 
but callous and indifferent to His message as the Phoenician 
cities of Tyre and Sidon would not have been. And the 
gem of all these allusions was reserved for the Good 
Samaritan, a Gentile, the most disliked and distrusted of 
all by the Jews—and he it was who practiced an ideal in 
ethics and religion while the Jewish priest and Levite 
“passed by on the other side.” With this vivid picture 
of the difference between the new revelaton through Christ, 
and the antiquated background of Judaism, one is com* 
pelled to admit that Christianity came, not from Judaism, 
but in spite of it. 

The Divine Tragedy 

Whenever an excuse is wanted for an ignominious deed 
in court, the validity of the charge is of little moment; 
for the main thing in a program of infamy is the ease with 
which a false charge can be carried out. In this case it 
centered in the messiahship. In the course of time Christ 
was brought before Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, 
on a trumped-up charge of being one of the pretending 
Jewish messiahs. In modern parlance it would be called 
a “sanctimonious frame-up,” for He had no more to do 
with Jewish politics than He had with the Jewish religion. 
But the Talmudized “scribes, Pharisees and hyprocites” 



had been so thoroughly excoriated before the public that 
their offended dignities could bear it no longer. A fierce 
resentment would be natural in such a case with any people. 
How much more so with the Jews, who must always be 
“right,” since they are “the chosen”! Does a Jew ever 
apologize—would his religion permit it? 

Now these people had been smarting under His rebuke 
for some time, and planning His destruction. At last, 
through treachery, they had Him in their power, for He 
made no effort to escape. Now that they had Him, their 
problem was to make the Roman governor see it their way, 
for they had not the legal right to inflict the extreme 
penalty which they were resolved upon before there was 
the semblance of a trial. Moreover, they desired to shunt 
the blame for the contemplated murder upon the Romans, 
to discredit their rulers among the people who followed 
Christ, rather than to avoid the odium for the deed. They 
could have found plenty of authority in the Talmud for 
executing Him with horrible tortures as a violator of the 
Sabbath; but the Jews learned long ago how to induce 
others to do their deviltry, and thus afford an “alibi” for 
themselves. It is no unusual thing in these modern times 
for an innocent man to be “numbered among the trans¬ 
gressors” where Jew judges and Jew lawyers are allowed 
to tamper with the laws they are supposed to administer. 
The Jewish sense of justice is as rudimentary as that of a 
savage, condemning the accused without trial and weigh¬ 
ing evidence with passion instead of calmness. 

Pilate had already incurred the enmity of the Jews 
in a very inept manner, and he was now in a conciliatory 
mood toward them. He was anxious to oblige them, and 
this the Jews knew very well when they told him, “Thou 
art not Caesar’s friend” (much they cared about Caesar), 
“if thou let this man go.” There, indeed, was a concealed 



threat which was not lost on Pilate, for he did not want 
to risk the displeasure of the emperor. No doubt he had 
heard about the messiah tradition, if he cared enough 
about it to remember, but he had heard Christ called the 
“king of the Jews,” and that, of course, interested him. 
So he said to Christ, “Art Thou then the King of the Jews?” 
Here it was again, the same old falsehood from a different 
source, wherewith the populace had hounded Him all 
through His ministry. To Pilate’s direct question Christ 
answered, wearily, no doubt, “You are talking” (in Greek, 

su legeis) with the implied corollary, I have nothing to say. 

Attention must be called at this point to the transla¬ 
tion, in the authorized version of the New Testament. In 
that translation, “Thou sayest it,” the word “it” is supplied 
and is not in the original Greek text. The verb may be used 
either transitively or intransitively, and it makes better 
sense to choose the latter, especially when no direct object 
is mentioned. If the “it” had been in the text it would 
seem to mean that Christ made claim to being the King of 
the Jews, and His reply would have implied that Pilate 
was assenting thereto. Had that been the case, Pilate would 
have been justified in accounting Him a rebel against 
Roman authority, and that, too, upon His own admission. 
In which case Pilate would have sentenced Him to death 
at once. But on the contrary, he reported to the Jews, 
“I find no fault in Him.” Thus the logic of the events 
as well as the literal rendering of the words require the 
same translation, namely, “You are talking,” and as a 
corollary, there is nothing for me to say. It was the reply 
of resignation. The Jewish rabble, together with the San¬ 
hedrim, had already condemned Him to death, and to 
escape the Romans would have been but to suffer a worse 
fate at the hands of the Jewish mob, probably as described 
in the Talmud. 



So the trial before Pilate was a mere formality. 
“Judge Lynch,” in the person of the high priest, had 
already condemned Christ to death, and he demanded of 
the reluctant sheriff in the person of Pilate that Christ 
should be executed legally. “They feared the people,” 
we are told, and with very good reason, for Christ’s fol¬ 
lowers were numerous though unorganized. Besides, if 
there were popular disapproval from the masses they could 
embarrass the Romans still more by blaming them with 
the whole affair. Pilate demurred and tried to squirm 
out of it by offering to substitute a real criminal. But 
the high priest would not have it so. Evidently a criminal 
was not a fit substitute as an offering for the people, for 
Caiaphas had decreed, says the gospel of John, that “It 
was expedient that one man should die for the people.” 
Was this, then, a “ritualistic murder,” of which practice 
the Jews are accustomed to be charged to this day? It 
looks like it. 

To men of evil intent there is something especially in¬ 
furiating in the reproach of a righteous life. Formal 
righteousness enthroned in power was the only kind that 
these Sanhedrim satanists knew. Their insulted dignities 
could not endure the reproach of a blameless life, which 
by its contrast with themselves revealed their hypocrisy. 
Hence, their desperate efforts to “frame” Him, and after 
many failures they secured a couple of perjurers who 
swore to exactly what Caiaphas wanted. The best answer 
to calumny is silence, and Christ kept silent until, as 
Matthew’s gospel tells us, Caiaphas said to Him, “I adjure 

Thee by the living God that Thou tell us whether Thou 
be the Christ, the Son of God.” Then Christ answered 
plainly and to the point, though He well knew that in 
doing so He sealed His doom. For hero was the highest 
authority in the local background challenging Him to 
declare Himself, and He could not have evaded the issue 



if He had wanted to do so. As long as the questioning 
was along political grounds, as before Pilate, He could 
remain silent. But He must not remain silent on the ques¬ 
tion put to Him by Caiaphas, who was a murderer at 
heart. Had He not met that question squarely and bravely 
as He did, facing certain death therefor, He could not have 
said a few hours later on the Cross, “It is finished.” He 
did not proclaim Himself to be the messiah that the Jews 
were looking for, as, indeed, He was not. And Caiaphas 
did not ask Him if He were the messiah of the Jews. 
It would have been a silly question, indeed, with no knowl¬ 
edge of His spiritual mission, to have asked this teacher, 
this Healer of the sick, the lame, the blind, the leprous, if 
He were the glorified General that the Jews wanted, in 
order to overwhelm their latest conqueror, the Roman. 
Caiaphas framed his question knowing enough of Christ’s 
straightforwardness to know what answer he would get. 
And he got it. Thereupon, after a hypocritical display 
of offended sanctity, he deliberately twisted that answer 
into a political charge which he laid before Pilate. 
Caiaphas was a perfect example of the Talmudic Jew. And 
still Pilate squirmed and tried to shift the burden of de¬ 
cision upon the governor of Galilee, Herod, who happened 
just then to be in Jerusalem. But Herod was not to be 
caught in that way, for even though the accused was a 
Galilean, the accusation was under the jurisdiction of the 
authorities at Jerusalem. So Pilate, after all his vacilla¬ 
tion, his frank statement that he “found no fault in Him,” 
and the plea of his wife to “have nothing to do with that 
just man”—Pilate, weak and irresolute, capitulated to the 
Jewish mob, headed by the Sanhedrim and high priest, like 
a sheriff giving up a prisoner he had pronounced innocent 
to be illegally executed as if by law. 

Did Christ say or do anything during all this harrow- 



ing experience to show that He did or did not include 
Himself in the Jewish race? Yes, inferentially. Every¬ 
body knew Him and His followers as Galileans—Pilate, 
Herod, Caiaphas, and even the servant who detected Peter’s 
Galilean speech. In the gospel of John it is recorded that 
Christ said before Caiaphas, “I ever taught in the syna¬ 
gogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort” 
—thus naming the Jews objectively. And since He did 
not include Himself among them, but throughout the whole 
farce of a trial He regarded Himself and was regarded 
by others as a Galilean and not a Jew, what excuse has 
anyone for calling Him a Jew? Absolutely none. Men 
do not “gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles,” nor 
expect the honesty and courage of Christ to be found with 
miscreants like Caiaphas. It was not Christ who called 
Himself the King of the Jews, as written on the Cross over 
His head, but the caprice of Pilate as a taunt to the Jews. 
Pilate’s position was fully understood by Christ, who said 
to him, as if in partial forgiveness, “He that delivered 
me unto thee hath the greater sin,” which may have meant 
Judas, but it certainly meant Caiaphas. For where is there 
so great a criminal as is a crooked judge, whose infamy 
is recorded as an act of justice, however base he may be? 

The supreme testimony of Christ against the Jewish 
messiahship was during this mock trial, when He said, 
“Ye call me King, and so I am; but My kingdom is not 
of this world.” Isn’t that enough to silence the tradition 
of the Jewish messiahship so far as Christ was concerned? 
What more could be asked for? 

Christ lived and died a Galilean Gentile or non-Jew, 
so far as He was the Son of Man. It has been said by 
another 1 that this makes Him all the more akin to the whole 

1—Ernest Renan, “Life of Christ.” 



world—the Galileans being a mixed people but non-Jewish, 
and therefore He was not the scion of any one race or 
dynasty. He had the Galilean’s independent spirit in His 
disposition, and not once did He show a servile attitude 

toward His persecutors, before or during the trial—no, not 
even to the high priest. When smitten for His reply to 
that criminal functionary, He protested, “If I have spoken 
evil, bear witness of that evil; but if well, why smitest 
thou Me?” Now contrast this typical Galilean attitude 
with that of one of His most devoted apostles, who fol¬ 
lowed Him even unto death. Paul, who was not a Galilean, 
having been smitten at the orders of the high priest, reviled 
that contemptible official very handsomely. But he apolo¬ 
gized for it as soon as he learned that it was a high priest 
who had given the order. And he backed up that apology 
by quoting the Jewish law. Neither Christ nor any other 
Galilean, as Josephus describes them, would have apolo¬ 
gized for having his face slapped. The truth is eternally 
right, and one has no right to apologize for being on the 
side of truth. There is no “relativity” about it. 

The modern Jewish claim that Christ was of their race, 
though not the messiah looked for, is a flimsy absurdity. 
It has no basis in history. It is a frantic attempt of their 
rabbis to revive the “earliest of heresies,” Ebionitism, and 
its purpose is to drag His divinity down to the Jewish 
level. He claimed far more than a mere Jewish messiah- 
ship, resisting the popular demand, the evident wishes of 
His disciples, and the false allegations of His enemies. 
As a king over a spiritual realm, He entered Jerusalem 
on that Palm Sunday with no display of worldly power, 
but it was not enough to still the demand for an earthly 
leader. And even in His latest moments with His disciples 
they disputed among themselves as to who should be 



greatest in the kingdom they expected Him to establish 

And so they crucified Him; 

And “He was numbered among the transgressors ” 

Author’s Note: Adequate treatment of the theme of this chapter is 
a matter for volumes instead of pages. Doctrinal points and church 
dogmas have been avoided as far as possible; for it is addressed 
to all Gentiles, though admittedly from a Christian standpoint. 



PART I — Chapter III 

The Instruments 

The escape of the NEW RELIGION from the back¬ 
ground of Judaism, as faced by the earliest Christians was 
a task of no small magnitude. It were well for Chris¬ 
tianity to be able to say that it is completely accomplished 
now. It was a task that devolved upon such men as Peter, 
Paul and other disciples. Whether their ability was in¬ 
nate or was developed out of a contact that enabled and 
fitted them for it we need not stop to consider. The point 
is, so far as personal qualities are concerned, that in the 
brief lifetime allowed them they made the world eternally 
their debtors to an extent beyond all praise. 

They were men, specially chosen and qualified, but 
nevertheless they were fallible men. There was a great 
deal of Saul that remained in Paul to the end in spite of 
his transformation. It could hardly be otherwise. Grave 
doctrinal differences arose among them which divided even 
Peter and Paul; but the spirit of Christ prevailed over 
both in essentials to the unification of all believers. And 
in reverent obedience they submitted their differences to 
that leadership, so that it was Christ who led His own 

These facts deserve emphasis in dealing with the escape 
from the background of Judaism; for the burden of that 
movement necessarily fell upon all of the early followers, 
and especially upon the apostles who were supereminent. 
These were the effective instruments, albeit they were 
fallible instruments, and it should give no offense to the 
modern believer when we speak of them in the character 
of fallible men rather than as deified saints, as manv 



devout Christians now conceive of them. It is to be re¬ 
membered also that these were the ones whose faith must 
be strong enough to fulfill Christ’s blessing upon “those 
who not having seen, yet have believed.” 

The Greek Instrumentality 

The world little realizes the importance of the Greek 
influence in shaping the destiny of Christianity. It is 
not so much the influence of the Greek language itself, 

which was enormous, but in the non-submission of the 
early Greek Christians to the demands of the Judeo- 
Christians that they become Judaised, before they could 
become Christians. So pervasive was this influence, not 
only throughout Galilee, but even in Judea, that the Old 
Testament, translated in Alexandria, had to be rendered 
into Greek for the benefit of the Jews themselves every¬ 
where, the Hebrew language having become at that time 
all but obsolete. This is the version known as the sep- 
tuagint. Throughout the New Testament one is conscious 
of an avoidance of mention of that great race whose influ¬ 
ence pervaded and dominated both the conquered Jews and 
the conquering Romans. Concerning the earliest spread 
of the message of Christ westward the New Testament 
writers were characteristically silent with respect to the 
part played by the Greeks, but the results speak for them¬ 
selves. If the message of “Christ and Him crucified” was 
“to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolish¬ 
ness,” the Greeks were the first to make their recovery, 
as we shall see later. 

It is very significant that such modern Jewish his¬ 
torians as Prof. Graetz and Dr. Klausner distinguished 
broadly between the “pagan-Christians” (Greeks) and the 
Judeo-Christians. It is also significant that while they 



hold the former responsible for the division between 

Christianity and Judaism, they freely admit that there was 

an amicable understanding between the Judeo-Christians 
and the writers of the Talmud! “What concord hath 
Christ with Belial?” or the Talmud writers? 

Summary of Differences 

Whatever may be the attitude of a Gentile, Christian 
or otherwise, toward the divinity of Christ, he will no 
doubt agree to the following: 

First : Christ showed His detachment from Judaism by 
His direct appeal to God as the Father in Heaven. He 
did not on His own account appeal to the Jewish racial 
deity, no more than He did to Zeus or Jupiter. 

Second : The contrast between the message of Christ 
and the cult of Judaism was, so far as He was concerned, 
diametrical. But for those brought up in Judaism His 
attitude was one of kindly and helpful tolerance. 

Third : Christ was not an enemy of Judaism or any 
other religion, except as light is the enemy of darkness. 
He merely contented Himself with showing “a more ex¬ 
cellent way.” 

Fourth : Christ followed the customs of Judaism— 

the observance of the passover, for instance, for it was 
national as well as religious. He taught in the synagogues 
also, for these were the “town halls” of the nation. 

Fifth : Christ was in the midst of Judaistic surround¬ 
ings, even among His kindred and closest friends. He 
was never understood—not even at the Last Supper. 

Sixth: Christ in His parting instructions did not tell 
His disciples to abandon Judaism. He told them to preach 
the gospel to all mankind, which amounted to the same 
thing, for it was an act of self-exclusion. This made it 
a Gentile religion per se , namely, a non-ethnical„ non- 



exclusive religion, humanitarian in its scope, and there¬ 
fore non-Jewish. 

One might suppose that the height and depth and 
breadth of the abyss that separated such a religion from 
its surroundings would have impressed His followers pro¬ 
foundly. But as a matter of fact the perception of the 
great difference required time. It was the perception of 
this difference that was left by Christ to others who fol¬ 
lowed; for He contented Himself with merely sowing the 
seed as the sole germinating power that lay beyond man’s 
power. Those left behind must develop their capacity 
and worthiness, hence they must have plenty to do. And 
in all contrition we must add that the escape from Judaism 
remains to be completed, for Christianity still suffers from 
contamination with that primitive cult. It can not be 
repeated too often that neither of the four gospels was 
written till after Peter, Paul, and probably all of the 
earlier apostles and leaders had suffered martyrdom, and 
those who compiled the New Testament canon were not 
as detached from Judaism as were those apostles. 

This new religion was “broader than the measure of 
man’s mind.” The Greek race with all its romantic galaxy 
of the gods had never produced a universal religion. Their 
Olympic games were a period of “lustration,” a religious 
revival so to speak, and the civilized world at that time 
made use of the occasion as if it were a world’s fair— 
as indeed it was—but the religion was Greek and the for¬ 
eigners there assembled came with their own religious 
cults. The Jews likewise could never have originated a 
world religion, for theirs was a selfish and revengeful 
Jahveh, devoid of a sense of fair play as between man 
and man universally. How idle it is to think that Chris¬ 
tianity, a world religion, could have sprung from the 
“chosen people” bigotry! 



Christ’s methods were evolutionary, not revolutionary. 
He did not undertake to overthrow the whole system of 
Judaism, nor any other religion, but having sown the 
seed of reform He left things to work out in the length 
of time needed. One might suppose that those who had 
walked with Him from day to day would have been im¬ 
patient to see His spiritual kingdom come upon earth; but 
they did not clearly distinguish between the temporal and 
the spiritual kingdom, and naturally they placed the em¬ 
phasis on the former. The fetters of the past are not easily 
broken, and this ancient Jewish system had its hold upon 
them. Its traditional sanctions of what was considered 
right, all reduced to accepted conventions, could not at 
once be thrown aside. Those conventions, it is true, had 
strangled the life out of Judaism as Christ had so often 
shown. But the forms of a dead faith may continue to 
flourish independently of the extinct life that once in¬ 
habited them. Indeed those forms may be defended with 
all the greater zeal by those whose interests are imperiled, 
especially when they come in contact with a living faith, 
and recognize therein a potent enemy. So it was with 
Judaism, and so it is today; for it thrives only by its 
antagonism to a living organism, Christianity, and when 
left to itself, isolated and alone, its real character as an 
empty racial cult, devoid of a living faith, is at once 

But why did Peter and the other apostles still cling 
to Judaism? They were Galilean Gentiles, and one might 
suppose that they would have been glad to escape the 
absurd formalities of an alien faith, remembering that 
Christ said, “I came that ye might have life, and that ye 
might have it more abundantly.” No doubt Peter did 
remember, but why not introduce this new teaching into 
the old and thus revive the ancient forms? Again, Judaism 



offered a system, a body of beliefs, traditions and usages 
of which their lives were still a part. To renounce Juda¬ 
ism was to renounce their own history for many centuries 
back, and step off into—what? Were the ten command¬ 
ments, the psalms, the leadership of Moses and Joshua, 
the laws, the scriptures and the prophets—were all these 
to be scrapped? How much of this was to be retained 
and how much to be rejected? All this is still bothering 
a good many people among us, nearly two thousand years 
later, so Peter and the others are not to be blamed for 

tardiness. The new religion, when they began to think 
about it as such, had nothing to offer in place of all this 
except the life and teachings of Christ as remembered by 
those about Him, and these were not formulated into a 
canon called the gospels until Peter and the others had 
passed from earth. There was no hallowed past if they 
renounced Judaism—a past stretching all the way back 
to the mythical Adam. And to crown all this, the new 
religion was given them as a world religion—for their 
enemies, even these hated Romans, for anybody and every¬ 
body, just the same as for the Jews and the Judaized, and 
no partiality shown for themselves, the elect of their own 
Jahveh! Such a thing was unthinkable—it was unheard 
of in Judaism. Terms of equality with the rest of the 
world were simply out of the question. The Jews were 
still “the chosen,” and how could they be so impious to 
Jahveh as to reject his special favor! So also must have 
thought the Judaised of Galilee, yet it was the Galileans 
whose stuborn determination was a determining factor in 
the spread of Christ’s gospel. Religion, race, ethics, 
patriotism and industrial well-being were all bound up, 
as they still are, in one indivisible cult called Judaism, 



and if a man renounces one he renounces all. Hence the 
bond of race is compulsory in every other respect. 

There was but the one solution as Peter saw it—first 
become Judaised then become Christianized. Naturally, 
he preached first to those already Judaised, hoping thereby 
the sooner to spread Christianity. Naturally, also, he em¬ 
phasized the points of coincidence between the two rather 
than the reverse. Peter did not want, nor did he intend, 
to become an apostle to the Gentiles where his equivocal 
position would be put to the test. The doctrine of the 
messiahship lent itself admirably to his point of view, 
especially in emphasizing the spiritual deductions of 
prophets like Isaiah. Peter himself had conformed to the 
rites of Judaism, hence the new converts from the Gentile 
world had only to follow his example and all would be 
well. Simple enough, wasn’t it? But as to all these dif¬ 
ferent races of mankind, each with its own traditions of 
what was right or wrong—what common ground could be 
found among them? Those brought up in Judaism could 
conceive of ethics and religion as merely a tribal inherit¬ 
ance with no common conscience throughout the world. 
What could be the basis of a world appeal, therefore, in¬ 
stead of a racial basis? So Peter and others concluded, 
and they continued to preach Christ and to adhere to the 
usages of Judaism, disregarding, and perhaps unaware of 
the incongruity therein. 

Abandoning the Compromise 

But this compromise between Christianity and Judaism 

-for such it was—could not endure, for the two were 

unrelated and irreconcilable. The one was broadly Gentile, 
the other strictly racial and intolerant. Judaism would 
not have it so. Having brought about the public assassina¬ 
tion of the Head of the new faith they had no idea of 



permitting His followers to preach His doctrines. They 
even forbade them to perform acts of healing, and when 

the disciples persisted they were thrown into prison. One 
thing led to another till violence was used at the behest 
of the Jews, hiding as usual, behind legal authority, the 
first Christian martyrs fell, and thus the bloody persecu¬ 
tions began. Meantime Peter had virtually preached to 
all the world on the day of Pentecost, but it was the same 
Peter who had to be changed later by a vision. 

The Greeks to the Rescue 

Christianity found its friends, its native element, before 
the days of Pentecost. It was while Christ was still alive 
that the Greeks came to Philip (the name is Greek) and 
said, “Sir, we would see Jesus.” A race like the Greeks 
would not be likely to let any good thing go unnoticed. 
Besides, they were Aryans; and as like perceives like, the 
message of Christ quickly dawned upon their intelligence. 
Philip and Andrew (another Greek name) carry the mes¬ 
sage to Christ, and His reaction to the same is momentous. 
It is as if He saw that at last His gospel had reached the 
world at large, and He was now ready for the sacrifice of 
Himself. Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour is 
come that the Son of Man should be glorified. Verily, 
verily I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into 
the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die it 
bringeth forth much fruit.” The whole passage should 
be read (John 12:20-36) if one would see how powerfully 
Christ was affected by this incident. It was less than a 
week later, at the Last Supper, that He told His disciples, 
“Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.” 

Three days after the Crucifixion two of His disciples 
were on their way to Emmaus, and Emmaus is in the 
Shephelah or foothills looking westward toward the Medi- 



terranean Sea. Why were not the names of those two 
disciples given, since Christ was ready to honor them with 
His company? The omission itself suggests that they were 
Greek names and therefore unfamiliar, or possibly treated 
with less consideration than they deserved by reason of that 
fact. Anyhow, radiating from Jerusalem as a center, the 
westward urge of Christianity was far the most pronounced. 
Down from the hills about Jerusalem and westward 
through the Shephelah and on to the seacoast raced the 
new religion, for it had found its own people that were 
not Judaised. We soon begin to read of its progress in 

Antioch, Tarsus, Cesaraea, Joppa, Lydda and elsewhere, 
and soon thereafter in the cities of the coast of Asia Minor. 
How early this was accomplished may not be exactly 
known, but we do know that in the time of Emperor 
Claudius, within ten years after the Crucifixion, Chris¬ 
tianity had reached the far away capital of the Roman 

No wonder that “the disciples were first called Chris¬ 
tians in Antioch,” a Greek city on the seacoast. Up in 
Jerusalem they were split up into a number of factions, 
quarreling over doctrinal points. Hegesippus mentions 
seven of these factions or heresies, without giving the one 
to which he belonged, namely, the Ebionites. Down came 
these Judaisers from Jerusalem to Antioch, saying that the 
Greek converts had no right to be called Christians, since 
they had not conformed to the usages of the Jews. This 
led to a general conference in Jerusalem of the apostles, 
elders and leaders of the Christians, and the matter was 
settled then and there that Judaism was not essential to 
Christianity and the Gentile converts need not conform to 
the rites of the ancient cult. After this there was no room 



for doubt on that point, yet we shall see later in this 
chapter how this decision of the apostles was ignored by 
the Ebionites or Judeo-Christians. 

The New Leader 

Out of this conference in Jerusalem arose a new leader, 
a strong advocate of the Gentile position, though a convert 
from Judaism. It was no other than Paul, the persecutor 
of former times, and still an object of distrust to many. 
He came, fortfied with a deep experience of his own on 
the road to Damascus. His testimony was immensely 
strengthened by reason of his experience, his successful 
ministry, his education, his clear grasp of the situation, 
and finally because he was an orator, skilled to present 
his side of the case. By reason of all this he was able 
“to withstand Peter to the face,” and the apostolic position 
with respect to the independence of Christianity from all 
relationship with Judaism was established. 

The Early Conversions and Martyrdoms 

Peter was thoroughly awake now and preaching with 
characteristic fervor and power, for his allegiance to 
Judaism was a thing of the past. The new religion was 
gaining momentum like an avalanche. It seized upon the 
minds and wills of men and women with an unprecedented 
grasp—a terrific conviction. As the persecution gained 
in ferocity the zeal of the converts grew. There seemed 
to be something supernatural about it. Men do not go 
to death by torture for a mere whim, nor for a fantasy, 
nor even for a firm and settled conviction that a thing is 
true and worthy. But the onlookers saw men, women, 
and even children, in crowds , meeting death in its most 
horrible forms. WHY? To attest their loyalty to that 
Supreme Name—the name of their Lord Jesus Christ. 
Even in our day there is something uncanny in the emo* 



tional power, the ecstatic enthusiasm, the religious delirium 
if you choose to call it so, that is sometimes witnessed on 
the part of a new convert to Christianity, say and think 
what you will about it. It is actually transforming in 
its effect, as if by a miracle. It is not supernatural but 
it is supranatural, because it is not to be explained by 
natural laws. Now imagine the chasm between a mere 
racial cult with its own petty deity, its own circumscribed 
interests, its denial of universal justice in arrogating to 
itself a “most favored nation” treatment at the hands of 

the Almighty; and on the other hand an appeal to all 
humanity in the name of justice, truth, mercy, kindness, 
neighborliness, love, without any fear or favor whatsoever! 
The religions of Greece and Rome were frankly polythe¬ 
istic, and therefore tolerant and neutral, open to the preach¬ 
ing of Christianity. They accepted Christianity in multi¬ 
tudes, because they were Gentiles, responding to a Gentile 
religion—which is no more than saying a religion for the 
whole world. Outside of Palestine it met Jews here and 
there, converted some but antagonized many more, and 
the progress among them was limited. But outside of 
Jewry its progress was beyond all explanation. There 
must have been an exhilaration about it that lies beyond 
our knowledge, due, perhaps, to the discovery that good 
and bad motives were common to all mankind—in a word, 
that good and bad were abstractly and not relatively right 
or wrong, respectively, because a Supreme Being had made 
men in His own spiritual image, and the moral bond 
among mankind was universal. There was also the intense 
moral conviction of the Galileans that gave Christianity 
its first impulse, and “launched it through its many martyrs 
into the struggle that could not fail of victory. Jerusalem 



could never have conquered humanity,” says one 1 “it is 
the north (Galilee) alone which has made Christianity.” 
And again, “the palm is his who has been strong both in 
words and deeds; who has discerned the good, and at the 
price of his blood has made it triumph. Jesus from this 

double point of view is without parallel. His glory remains 
entire, and will never be renewed.” 

The Incompleteness of the Escape 

Geographically, the escape from Judaism was soon ac¬ 
complished, for Christianity was already a world religion 
before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. But tradi¬ 
tionally the escape is still incomplete, for there remain 
as parts of the Judaistic background certain portions of 
literature, some of it original with the Hebrew race but 
the best of it borrowed from earlier sources. It is be¬ 
cause the Hebrews borrowed so well that we still have 
an Old Testament that has never been given up. There 
were earlier sources that the remote past has yielded up 
to the Hebrew borrowers, such as the story of the flood, 
the ten commandments, and most of the psalms. And 
then some unknown heir of immortality has given us the 
Book of Job, with the marks of a culture and refinement 
that the Hebrew nomads never knew. 

Moral precepts and religious convictions are not the 
exclusive property of any one race, and Moses was not 
the only teacher and lawgiver of mankind. The Hebrews, 
had they but known of Homer, Aeschuylus, Solon, and 
other great Greeks, might well have extended their bor¬ 
rowing. For there was Pythagoras, who taught the im¬ 
mortality of the soul, and Socrates who in 399 B. C. was 
put to death for teaching men to purify the filth from the 

1—Ernest Renan, “Life of Christ,” p. 123. 



ancient Greek religion. It was the Greek Heraclitus who 
first wrote, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
was with God, and the Word was God,” which saying was 
borrowed by Philo, a Jew, and thus found its way into 
the Greek New Testament. It is much to be regretted that 
the borrowers did not tell us whence the originals came. 

What is still more regrettable is the inclusion among 
their “sacred writings” of what may be called the gospel 
of indecency, mentioned elsewhere. These are the tram¬ 
mels of Judaism that have clung like the rags of a shame¬ 
ful past to the skirts of Christianity, besmirching its repu¬ 
tation. They have no part or parcel with Christ—not the 
faintest echo in His teachings, though He did not shun the 
vilest of mankind. To parade such indecencies in the 
pulpit or elsewhere is to blaspheme the name and the 
purifying influence of divinity among men. Christianity 
must denounce the charnel house of Judaism and devote 
itself to a gospel that is altogether Christ-like, pure and 

The struggle that went on in the minds of the early 
writers is in evidence throughout the epistles as well as 
in the gospels. But by reading between the lines some¬ 
times one can discern the Christ character behind them that 
was only partially portrayed. It needs perspective in 
order to see a colossal mountain, or a colossal character, 
and in the nature of the case such perspective was impos¬ 
sible. It is safe to infer that Peter and Paul, given the 
perspective that we enjoy would have omitted all reference 
to the Hebrew “laws,” and the problem of reconciling 
Christian freedom with them. “Ye shall know the truth 
and the truth shall make you free,” said Christ. What 
we moderns lose in definiteness through a personal contact 
we gain in perspective, and in freedom from the Hebrew 
background. We must not underrate the advantage of 



perspective. Reading between the lines, therefore, one 
does not find prolixity of reasoning in regard to His back¬ 
ground. It was as clear in His mind as it should be in 
ours. He simply remained free from all historical con¬ 
nection, all doctrinal restraint of the past, and gave them 
a NEW testament. He told them as much, but their 
Judaised brains had to do their thinking for them, and 
they could not see Him as He was. “The past was too 
much with them.” 

Paul’s Struggle With the “Laws” 

All this is exemplied in Paul’s struggle with the ancient 
Jewish laws. His involved ratiocination, his vain struggle 
to reconcile one thing with another, his painful effort to 
patch the old garment with the new material—these were 
the things that worried him sometimes into a strange 
exegesis. No wonder he was forced to exclaim in his 
despair, “Oh, wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver 
me from the body of this death?” Then straightway re¬ 
covering his mental composure he answers his own ques¬ 
tion correctly. Paul had no need of the “laws” and all 
his fruitless speculation concerning them—no more than 
we Gentiles have who waste our efforts trying to reconcile 
them with Christ’s doctrines, but his Hebrew background 
clung to him like the soil of his own native land, and 
logic struggled in vain to get rid of it. The solution was 
simple enough, merely to remove the soiled garment and 
put on the clean one. How much more simple, yet subtle 
in their simplicity, were the words of Christ: “I came 
not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.” Precisely! Christ 
did not destroy the law—did not bother about it—but He 
did destroy the need of it. This amounted to the same thing 
without antagonism—and without equivocation. It was 
like one invention displacing an earlier one, or the Coper- 



nican displacing the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system. 
What a pity that a modern scholar should waste time and 
effort on the absurd “laws” that worried Paul! 

Christianity Goes to Rome 

The new religion spread throughout Syria and Asia 
Minor, then into Macedonia and Greece, and then on to 
Rome. Wherever Paul went he generally found small 
groups of earnest people who had heard of Christ or were 
waiting to hear about Him. It was thus that Paul found 
when he arrived in Rome, and at once sought out those 
of his own race. As usual, he preached to them and was 
opposed by them. Moreover, he found that Judaism had 
been long enough in Rome to become recognized as a 
racial religion, and to become disliked, as usual, though 
it had gained certain privileges which it jealously guarded. 
These they did not propose to share with the Christians 
as the Judeo-Christians desired, and there was commotion 
among them. This, naturally, in the eyes of the Romans, 
identified Jews and Christians as being different sects of 
Judaism, and they despised both accordingly, and Emperor 
Claudius banished both from Rome. But they were soon 
back again, the Jews more vociferous than ever. The 
Roman populace was ready to believe any accusation about 
either one of them, but the Jews being more numerous 
than the Christians, had the greater advantage as shouters. 
And the Jews were eager to furnish all the accusations 
they needed, and they enjoyed a greater prestige, especially 
at the corrupt court of the successors of Claudius, by 
reason of their longer residence in Rome. Paul was dis¬ 
appointed with results so far as his preaching to the Jews 
in Rome was concerned, and inasmuch as it served to 
further identify the Christians with the Jews it was dis¬ 



But the Jews were by no means the only ones in Rome 
who had heard of Christ, nor were these confined to those 
“of Caesar’s household,” as mentioned by Paul. Lanciani’s 

recent studies of the tombs of Rome of the first century 
A. D. reveal the fact that there were others of the nobility 
of Rome, besides those of humbler fortune, who counted 
themselves among the followers of Christ in those crimson 
days that shortly followed. The Jews also had their con¬ 
verts among the Romans, it seems, and these included 
Poppaea, wife of Nero, as well as other influential persons 
near him. Their accusations against the Christians was 
that their religion was hostile to the Roman religion, which 
was true only in a competitive sense. 

The Great Fire and Its Consequences 

It was in the year 64 A. D., Nero being then Emperor 
of Rome, that a devastating fire destroyed about half of 
the city. Historians are unanimously of the opinion that 
Nero was incited by the Jews to blame the Christians for 
this calamity. Poppaea, together with the Jews, had gained 
great influence over him. He was to become the ruler of 
the east with his capital at Jerusalem—and this to Nero, 
who hated Rome and longed for the East! It is probable 
that Nero himself was unacquainted with the new religion 
and the members thereof, or had no feeling against them 
unless it were contempt for not appreciating his preten¬ 
sions to artistic ability. But having once begun the per¬ 
secutions he carried them on as a species of sport, and 
he bent his small ingenuity toward the invention of novel 
means of torture. The Jews 1 , on the other hand were unre¬ 
lenting in their efforts to totally exterminate the Christians, 

1—See notes at the end of this chapter, quotations from Gibbon, 

Renan and Lanciani, based on the testimony of Tacitus, Seutonius 

and Pliny the younger, all of which have been verified.—J. E. C. 



and they redoubled their influence around Nero to that 
end. The charge of arson with which it began was soon 

changed to the ridiculous accusation of “hatred of the 
human race.” For the charge of arson was easy to dis¬ 
prove, and the other charge was just as easily twisted 
into shape by those skilled at the business. And this is 
not all; for the charge of arson would have been limited 
in its application to Rome, whereas the latter accusation 
was applicable throughout the Roman Empire, which at 
that time meant the whole civilized world. Hence, when¬ 
ever a local authority was disposed to follow the example 
of Nero he did so with official sanction, and thus many 
a Christian in some remote part of the world was “butchered 
to make a Roman holiday.” The hideous tragedy did not 
come to an end in 68 A. D., when Nero committed sucide 
after kicking Poppaea to death; for though there was a 
lull in the excessive cruelty of Nero, it was soon followed 
by that of Domitian, “the second Nero,” and still later by 
that of Diocletian. Both of these acted in sheer male¬ 
volence, while several others of a higher moral character 
carried on the persecutions in behalf of their own Roman 
paganism. All opposition, Julian’s excepted, was ended 
by the conversion of Constantine to Christianity in 313 A. D. 

The Origin of the New Testament Canon 

These mass persecutions, especially the earlier ones, 
robbed the church of nearly all of its leaders—the apostles, 
elders and the earlier disciples, who had been most closely 
associated with the Founder of Christianity and His com¬ 
panions. This naturally led to the hastening of the com¬ 
mittal to written form—now far too long delayed—of the 
remembered sayings and doings of Christ. Peter, Paul, 
James and others had left epistles and other memoranda, 
some of which were personal epistles and some were 



“general.” Christ had given His disciples such a marvel¬ 
ous propulsive impetus to “Go into all the world and preach 
the gospel,” that they scarcely took time to look back to 
the beginning in order to make complete a record of what 
the beginning was like. The survivors were now impressed 
with the necessity of putting into permanent form the say¬ 
ings and doings of Christ. 

Earlier in this chapter it was related how the Judaisers 
or Judeo-Christians, or in a word, the Ebionites, came down 
from Jerusalem to the Greek coastal cities and tried to 

persuade the Greek Gentile Christians that they were not 
properly Christianized because they had not submitted to 
the rites of Judaism. Also that this led to a conference 
in Jerusalem where the Gentile view was championed by 
Paul and other leaders, and it was thereupon adopted as 
the official doctrine of the Christian church. In effect, it 
was the Christian “declaration of independence” from all 
other religions whatsoever, and especially from Judaism. 
It was the proclamation of the new religion that it was 
not a sect or branch of anything else. It was agreed to 
by all, with some reservations that all could assent to. 
Nevertheless, in Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings, 
especially toward the east, the Judaistic idea persisted, 
and it was in these same surroundings that the New Testa - 
ment canon was formulated, and in part, perhaps, written. 
Hence the ligaments in the gospels binding the New Testa¬ 
ment back to the Old Testament prophecies, genealogies 
and messianic doctrines are to be accounted for as due to 

the influence of this Judeo 1 -Christian “heresy,” as the 

1—Graetz (Jewish historian), “History of the Jews,” Vol. II, p. 273, 
tells us how the Judaeans and the elders of the Ebionites “mingled 
together without reserve,” for a time, but “it did not last long.” 
Again he says that “the closer the Judaean-Christians of the sec¬ 
ond or third generation approached the views held by the pagan- 



Christians (Greek-Christians), the further they drifted away from 
Judaism.” He mentions several names of the Talmud writers who 
were closely associated with the elders of the Christians, thus 
showing how closely Ebionitism or Judeo-Christianity approached 
Judaism. And it was in the midst of this influence that the New 
Testament was compiled! 

2—That is to say, in 49 A. D., according to some authorities. 

earliest sources called it, and that, too, in disregard of 
the authority of the apostles’ decision about twenty years 2 
earlier, the canon being dated about 69-70 A. D. 

Jerusalem was captured and laid waste by Titus in 70 
A. D. after several years of siege and desperate fighting. 
It was during this siege than an exodus of Christians took 
place to Pella, a city on the eastern side of the Jordan in 
eastern Galilee. Here they were comparatively safe, for 
in Jerusalem they were not among friends, and the Jewish 
factions were quarreling with each other even in the pres¬ 
ence of the Roman enemy. But Pella, we are told, 1 was 
the headquarters of Ebionitism, or where “the Ebionite 
heresy 2 first developed, and the Christianity of eastern 
Palestine is described more than once as of the Judaistic 
kind.” According to the greater number of authorities it 
was at Pella that the first three gospels, Matthew, Mark 
and Luke, were put into shape as we have them now. 
Bishop Lightfoot in his scholarly work, “The Apostolic 
Fathers,” maintains that another exodus from Jerusalem 
took place at about the same time, and that these were of 

1— Epphanius, “adv. Haeres,” XXX, 2. 

2— George Adam Smith “Historical Geography of the Holy Land,” 
p. 631, quotes both Epiphanius and Eusebius to this effect. He 
also calls attention to the fact that we have “no remains, not even 
in Pella, of all this,” due no doubt to Diocletian’s order to destroy 
all Christian evidences. 

Eusebius (264-349 A. D.), the earliest church historian, in H. E. 
Ill, 5, agrees on the origin of New Testament at Pella. So also 
among modern authorities do Ernest Renan and Prof. H. Graetz 
(Jewish) in History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 266. 



higher authority than were those who fled to Pella. These 
are represented to have gone to Ephesus, where with John, 
the writer of the Book of Revelations, and Philip and 
possibly others, the New Testament canon was formulated. 
In either case Ebionitism was dominant rather than the 
apostolic doctrine agreed upon at an earlier date, so that 
the result was the same. 

The Four Points of Ebionitism 

Four points in the position of Ebionitism make clear 
the nature of that “heresy.” They also stand as a warning 
against modern Ebiotism—the heresy that represents Christ 
as a Jew, and His doctrine a derivative from Judaism. 

These points are as follows: 1 

1. “Enforcing the Mosaic law,” 

2. Affirming the human birth of Christ,” 

3. “Abjuring Paul as a heretic,” 

4. “Looking for the return of Christ to found an 
earthly kingdom.” 

Taking these four points singly or as a whole, can 
anyone doubt that they are more Jewish than Christian? 
No wonder that the writers of the Talmud, if Graetz is 
correct, were on the best of terms with these Judeo-Chris- 
tians in the attempt to bring Christ down to the level of 
themselves. With this program before us it is easy to 
understand the purpose of those two genealogies of Matthew 
and Luke, awkwardly designed and lamely executed, at¬ 
tempting to prove that Christ was no other than a member 
of the Jewish race, and that “salvation is of the Jews” 
(John 4:22), and other passages that will occur to the 
reader. We have already seen how Christ disposed of 
these false assumptions. Peter and Paul, had they been 
alive when the gospels were written, could never have 

1—George Adam Smith, “Hist. Geog. of the Hold Land,” p. 631. 



sanctioned the program of the Ebionites as above described, 
for they were already on record to the contrary, in that 
momentous conference of the apostles in Jerusalem. If 
any further evidence were needed in the matter, we have 
it in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (2:21), a Gentile 
people, when he tells them that since they have followed 
the Judaisers back into Judaism, “If righteousness come 
by law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Nearly the whole 
of that epistle is Paul’s reply to the Ebionite heresy. 

On the contrary, whoever wrote the Epistle to the 
Hebrews was thoroughly imbued with Ebionitism. The 
same doctrine is further set forth in the Book of Revela¬ 
tions, as thus analyzed: 1 

“Above all, it (Revelations) is the intense expression 
of Jewish pride. In its writer’s view the distinction of 
Jew and Gentile will be carried over into the Kingdom 
of God. While the twelve tribes eat the fruits of the tree 
of life, the Gentiles must content themselves with a medi¬ 
cinal decoction of its leaves. The writer regards the Gen¬ 
tiles—even believers in Jesus, even martyrs for Jesus— 
as adopted sons, as strangers introduced into the family 
of Israel, as plebeians permitted as a favor to claim a 
place near the aristocracy. * * * Jesus is, as His highest 
distinction, a Son of David, a Product of the Israelitish 
Church, a member of the Holy Family which God has 
chosen. The church of Israel has really wrought the work 
of salvation by this elected One of its own children. 
* * * Disciples of Paul are disciples of Balaam and 
Jezebel. * * * Paul himself has no place among the 
twelve apostles of the Lamb.” 

One need not question the sincerity of those who held 

1—Ernest Renan, “Anti-Christ,” p. 366. With this analysis in mind 
it will be well to read again the Book of Revelation. 



to the doctrine of Ebionitism, nor doubt their fidelity to 
the facts in other respects. But the plain truth is that 
they went beyond the facts, and in defiance of the earlier 
apostles, in their attempt to reconcile the record of the 
New Testament with their conception of the Old Testa¬ 
ment and a false notion of the importance of the Old to 
Christianity. They made a most grievous blunder in con¬ 
ceiving Christ to have been a Jew, and His gospel to be 
a continuation of the primitive cult of Judaism. They 
failed to conceive of Him apart from His Jewish surround¬ 
ings. The Greek spirit was not with them—cloistered as 
they were from the western world and in open warfare 
with Rome. Their religion partook of the severity of the 
desert, and the narrowness of their Hebrew associates. 

The following excerpts from the pages of three distinguished 
historians agree in their conclusions that the Jews were evidently 
culpable for the persecutions of the Christians by Nero. This is 
supported by the testimony of such ancient historians as Tacitus, 
Pliny the younger, and Suetonius, not to mention the church fathers, 
deserving though they be: 

LANCIANI, “Pagan and Christian Rome,” p. 311 ff.: 

“The pagans despised them both (i. e., Jews and Christians) 
and mixed themselves up with their affairs only from a fiscal point 
of view, because the Jews were subject to a tax of two drachmas 
per head, and the treasury officials were obliged to keep themselves 
acquainted with the statistics of the colony.” 

“This state of things did not last very long, it being of vital 
importance for the Jews to separate their cause from that of the 
newcomers (Christians). The responsibility for the persecutions 
which took place in the first century must be attributed to them, 
not to the Romans, whose tolerance in religious matters had become 
almost a state rule. The first attempt, made under Claudius, was 
not a success: it ended, in fact, in the banishment from the capital 
of every Jew, no matter whether he believed in the Old or the New 
Testament. 1 It was, however, a passing cloud. As soon as they 

1—A figure of speech—for there was no New Testament at that time— 

J. E. C. 



were allowed to come back to their transtiberian haunts, the Jews 
set to work again, exciting the feelings of the populace, and 
denouncing the Christians as conspiring against the state and the 
gods, under the protection of the laws which guaranteed to the 
Jews the free exercise of their religion. The populace, impressed 
by the conquests made by the gospel among all classes of citizens, 
was only too ready to believe the calumny. As for the state, it 
became a necessity either to recognize Christianity as a new religion, 
or to proscribe and condemn it. The great fire, which destroyed 
half of Rome under Nero, and which was purposely attributed to 
the Christians, brought the situation to a crisis. The first persecu¬ 
tion began. Had the magistrate who conducted the inquiry been 
able to prove the indictment of arson, perhaps the storm would 
have been short, and confined to Rome; but as the Christians could 
easily exculpate themselves, the trial was changed to a politico- 
religious one. The Christians were convicted not so much of arson 
as of a hatred of mankind; a formula which includes anarchism, 
atheism, and high treason. This monstrous accusation once ad¬ 
mitted, the persecution could not be limited to Rome; it necessarily 
became general, and more violent in one place than in another, 
according to the impulse of the magistrate who investigated this 
entirely unprecedented case.” 

EDWARD GIBBON, “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” 
Vol. II, p. 21 ff.: 

Gibbon first gives a description of the fire as recorded by Tacitus, 
and the frightful persecution of the Christians who were falsely 
accused of it. He then says: 

“We may therefore presume to imagine some probable cause 
which could direct the cruelty of Nero against the Christians of 
Rome, whose obscurity as well as innocence, should have shielded 
them from his indigation, and even from his notice. The Jews, 
who were numerous in the capital, and oppressed in their own 
country, were a much fitter object for the suspicions of the emperor 
and of the people: nor did it seem unlikely that a vanquished nation 
who already discovered their abhorrence of the Roman yoke, might 
have recourse to the most atrocious means of gratifying their im¬ 
placable revenge. But the Jews possessed very powerful advocates 
in the palace, and even in the heart of the tyrant; his wife and 
mistress, the beautiful Poppaea, and a favorite player (actor) of 



the race of Abraham, who had already employed their intercession 
in behalf of the obnoxious people. In their room it was necessary 
to offer some other victims, and it might easily be suggested that, 
although the genuine followers of Moses were innocent of the fire 
of Rome, there had arisen among them a new and pernicious sect 
of Galileans, which was capable of the most horrid crimes.” 

ERNEST RENAN, “Antichrist,” p. 140 ff.: 

“It is hard to believe that the idea of accusing the Christians 
of the July conflagrations came of itself to Nero. Doubtbless if he 
had known these good brethren nearly, he would have heartily 
hated them. Naturally they could not appreciate his merit in posing 
thus as a leading actor in front of the stage filled with the high 
life of the day; and what particularly enraged Nero was failure 
to recognize his talent as an actor of supreme merit. But he had, 
no doubt, heard them spoken of; he had never come in personal 
touch with them. Who could have suggested the exercrable thought? 
It is likely that suspicions had been started in more than one 
section of the city. The sect, by this time, was well known in the 
official world, and was much talked about. Paul, as we have seen, 
had friends among persons belonging to the service of the emperor’s 
palace. * * * From the accession of Caligula to the death of 

Nero, Jewish cabals never ceased at Rome. Jews had greatly aided 
in bringing the family of Germanicus to power and sustaining it. 
Whether through the Herods or other intriguers, they beset the 
palace, often to the ruin of their enemies. * * * Josephus is 

rather favorable to Nero, whom he considers to have been slan¬ 
dered, ascribing his crimes to his bad surroundings. Poppaea, 
according to him, was a woman of piety, favorable to the Jews, 
supporting the claims of their zealots, and adopting some of their 
rites. * * * Nero, hating everything Roman, liked to turn to 

the East, to surround himself with orientals, and keep up intrigues 
in that quarter.” 

“Is all this enough to build a theory upon?” May we, perhaps, 
trace to the hatred of Jews for Christians that ferocious caprice 
which exposed the most harmless of men to the most monstrous 
cruelties? It looks ill for the Jews, at all events, that their private 
interviews with Nero and Poppaea were just when the emperor 
conceived his hateful scheme against the Christians. * * * 

Why should the Romans, who commonly confounded Jew and Chris- 



tian, make just now so sharp distinction between them? Why 
should the Jews, towards whom the Romans felt the same moral 
antipathy and religious prejudice as to the Christians, be just now 
untouched by calumny? Punishment inflicted on Jews would have 
been just as good expiation. * * * A suspicion arises, strength¬ 

ened by the undoubted fact that, until the destruction of Jerusalem 
six years later, the Jews were the real persecutors, and spared no 
effort to exterminate the Christians.” 

And all three of these historians, had they lived till the present, 
might have added this question: What other race has ever been 
capable of such inhuman atrocities, except that one which to this 
day rejoices in the slaughter of 75,000 Medes, the thousands of 
Christians tortured to death by Nero, and the millions of Russians 
slaughtered or starved to death in our own time? With this history 
before us, will anyone tell us that Christ was of that race? 


PART I — Chapter IV 

It is sometimes thoughtlessly said that Christianity is 
an Oriental religion. But that is a statement due to mis¬ 
placed emphasis. It ignores the fact that Christianity lost 
little time in escaping the confines of its origin, chiefly 
through the instrumentality of the Greeks, and thereafter 
attaining its full growth and its mission as a world religion 
only in the Occident. The sun rises in the east, but that 
does not make the sun Oriental; and like the sun, Chris¬ 
tianity mounted toward the zenith of its power as it moved 
westward. No strictly Oriental religions have ever made 
much headway in the west, and owing to differences in 
mentality it is safe to infer that they never will. The 
fact that Christianity has done so is consistent with its 
occidental character—that is to say, its comprehensiveness, 
its breadth of human interest as opposed to the petty, 
provincial narrowness and bigotry, the concentrated self¬ 
ishness of Judaism. Christianity is fundamentaly non- 

Jewish; its earthly origin was among a Gentile people, 

the Galileans, and the principal means of freeing it from 
its hostile background was another Gentile people, the 
Greeks. The Apostolic Council held in Jerusalem to settle 
the matter about the year 49 A. D. offically declared the 
complete independence of Christianity from Judaism. And 
yet twenty years later, after Peter, Paul, and most of the 
early disciples had suffered martyrdom, the Judeo-Chris- 
tians or Ebionites, on friendly terms with the Jewish-Tal- 
mudists, introduced into the New Testament the messiah 
doctrine of the Jews, also the prophecies alleged to have 
foreshadowed the coming of their messiah, and finally those 
ridiculous genealogies—which prove nothing at all. We 



need not imagine that they were the less sincere because 
of these blunders. They simply could not escape from 

their own historical background, and the record shows that 
nobody could escape it except Christ alone. And we must 
not forget our debt of gratitude to them for collating and 
recording the events of Christ’s life into what is known 
as the New Testament canon, especially the first three 
gospels. But we would be false to the historic truth if 
we were unfaithful to the decision of the Apostolic Council 
twenty years earlier to the effect that Christianity was not 
to be entered through Judaism as a portal. The two were 
as separate and distinct from each other as night and day. 
Christianity was for all mankind, a Gentile religion which 
Jews might accept, but not on Jewish terms. In a word, 
it is Occidental in character, not Oriental. 

The Oriental Dress 

We Occidentals must be on guard against the vagaries 
of Oriental thought and expression, lest we fail to appre¬ 
ciate correctly the testimony of those who put into written 
form the message of Christ to the world. That caution 
must be redoubled when the reader of the Scriptures is 
unacquainted with Oriental literature, even though he is 
a daily reader of it in his Bible. It was this caution, 
overcaution, or lack of it, as one looks at it, that led the 
early Christian church to restrict all access to the Scriptures 
to those only who were schooled in the interpretation 
thereof. The freedom of access to the Scriptures was not 
above criticism when it brought the coarseness and filth of 
the Old Testament of the Hebrews and placed it on an 
even footing with the record of Christ and His mission. 
One can not but regret that the task of assembling the 
record of Christ did not fall to the Apostolic Christians, 
rather than to the Judeo-Christians who were more Jewish 


than Christian, and who were on friendly terms with the 
Jewish Talmudists. Modern Jewry rejoices 1 even in print, 
over the injection of their own filth into the Christian’s 

Christ’s message to mankind has of necessity passed 
through Oriental hands, since it was in the Orient that His 
life and mission were accomplished, and in doing so it 
has taken on the hue of the Orient as a matter of course. 
Hence, we find many of the characteristic idioms and 
figures of speech, and all that florid imaginery of the East 
that while giving it a poetic cast, incidentally removes 
the substance in some degree from the domain of sober 
prose. A good narrative must never lose in the telling 
when your genuine Oriental gets hold of it, so he gives 
it a dressing of flowery phraseology that he considers more 
becoming to its portent. And it must be added that many 
passages would fall flat and insipid if their Oriental finery 
were stripped away, leaving the cold, severe, matter-of- 
fact prose of the passage exposed like a pitiful skeleton. 
But flowers of speech must be sacrificed if they interfere 
with the vehicle of the truth. We Occidentals must not 
take the figurative language of the East too literally. We 
must pause and ask ourselves this question: Did the writer 
mean exactly what he said? We have brought no end of 
confusion and derision on ourselves by neglecting the dif¬ 
ference in thinking and expression between ourselves and 
those of the Near East. 

It must be added also that all over the world, science, 
invention and discovery have removed our sphere of 
thought toward the concrete, farther and farther away from 
the pastoral simplicity of those who gave us the record 
of the life and message of Christ. Hence, in the choice 

1—See footnote to Preface, “A Real Case Against the Jew.” 



of devotional language and hymnology this change must 
be taken into account lest a discord ensue. For outgrown 
expressions may sound not only fantastic but insincere. 
The artlessness of childhood may have its place in the 
Sunday-School and occasionally in the regular service, 
but when over indulged it palters the attitude of worship. 
Modern hymnology needs revision. 

Translation Into English 

Our earliest translators of the gospel into English— 
reverent souls that they were—faced some terrifying dif¬ 
ficulties in rendering from the original a faithful and ac¬ 
ceptable version; but they swallowed its extravagant figures 
of speech with a gulp that did credit to their heroism and 
honesty of purpose, just as if they were handling sober 
statements of fact. A translator from any language is 
entitled to some latitude of expression between a literal 
and a liberal rendering. To illustrate, the English idiom, 
“to take a picture” would certainly be misunderstood if 
literally translated into the French language, for they 
would say, “To make a picture.” However, in translating 
the Bible it would have been a risky thing to depart from 
a literal rendering, for the text was held to be “inspired,” 
“sacred,” every word of it, and no liberties could be tol¬ 
erated in those earlier days. The same is just as true with 
many good people today who have not been trained in 
the translation from any foreign language to our own. 
The same observations apply to antiquated or foreign 
methods of thought and expression. For instance, when 
a Hebrew prophet said to his hearers, “Thus saith the 
Lord,” they knew better than to believe that “the Lord” 
actually came down to earth and talked face to face with 
the prophet. It was his way of telling his hearers what 
his conscience told him to say, and putting it with all 


the solemnity that he could command. It is only the occa¬ 
sional Occidental, unschooled in Oriental speech, who is 
misled by such extravagant metaphors. 

Our translators into English deserve a degree of credit 
for their work that we mistakenly pass on to the original. 
How many of us stop to consider that the marvelous lan¬ 
guage of the first, the nieteenth and the twenty-third psalms, 
to go no further through the list, is due to the exquisite 
English translation, rather than to the primitive original 
with which but few are familiar, and none can enjoy as 
he does his own mother tongue! Granting that the sub¬ 
stance is all to be found in the original, and presumably 
it is, if put into commonplace terms in English it would 
be robbed of any beauty it may have had—and more. 
Beauty is an attribute of divinity, just as truth, goodness 
and righteousness are divine. The beauty of divinity that 
shines out in the English Bible belongs to the English 
language, and to those masters of English prose who 
wrought the translation, namely, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cover- 
dale and finally the King James translators who profited 
so much by the work of their predecessors, among whom 
there stands preeminently Tyndale the martyr. 

The common language of Galilee, spoken by Christ 
and His disciples, was the Aramaic, a dialect of the ancient 
Assyrian, with many Semitic relatives, including that of 
Judaea. It would be unreasonable to suppose that He 
was unacquainted with Greek also, since it was in common 
use throughout Galilee, and He and His disciples occa¬ 
sionally visited the Greek territory of Decapolis. Those 
who have been steeped in the literature of Greece can not 
fail to recognize in the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the 
Apostles the easy rythmic flow of that matchless language. 
Luke, as the traveling companion and secretary of Paul, 



recorded the stirring events of those journeys. And al¬ 
though it was Paul who stood before Festus and Agrippa, 

and later before the critical audience on Mars Hill in 
Athens, it was Luke whose Greek style gave form to the 
substance of what Paul said. One can but wish that the 
whole record from first to last had been enshrined in a 
medium free from the obscurity of Orientalism, and com¬ 
bined with a definiteness that need not be expected in a 
cumbrous, primitive jargon. 

Other Avenues 

“We have these avenues of a knowledge of God,” said 
a venerable Professor of Systematic Theology, namely, 
“history, including revelation, reason and experience. And 
these three must be coordinated—neither one more import¬ 
ant than the others; for the overemphasis of revelation 
leads to dogmatism; the overemphasis of reason leads to 
rationalism; and the overemphasis of experience leads to 
mysticism.” In youth we lean heavily upon the authority 
of revelation, in maturity we rationalize our beliefs, and 
in a ripe old age we appeal to our experience. This is 
the dictum of a wise Gentile Christian, a strictly Occi¬ 
dental foundation with no slavery to the traditions of the 
past, and no regimentation of the spirit such as that which 
held the scribes and Pharisees hidebound. There is the 
freedom in it that Christ preached, and that Judaism 
never knew. 

The dried husk of that cult could have offered Him 
no attraction. Since He could at the age of twelve hold 
His own amid the Jewish doctors in the temple, two in¬ 
ferences may be drawn. He knew at that age as much 
as they did about their boasted “laws,” and second that 
He had no use for them, seeing that He was known there¬ 
after only as “the carpenter’s son,” up to the time of the 


beginning of His unique mission. His first act of worship 
of which we have record was His consecration at the hands 
of His “forerunner” in the waves of Jordan. His vision 

was of a scope that comprehended eternity, thus mini¬ 
mizing the things one could touch and handle. He set 
at naught the miracles, for they stood in His way, though 
human frailty demanded them. He did not cultivate an 
air of mystery, for He was direct and plain-spoken. His 
appeal to us of the Occident is like that of one of our¬ 
selves, speaking to us. Time and again He declared just 
what He was, and if He was not understood, whose was 
the fault? The Man of Nazareth is the most uniquely 
substantial Personality that history can show, for by a 
strange parodox, His substance is that of the spirit , and 
the spirit is eternal, whatever may be said of the body. 
He vivified the reality of the spirit as no other has done, 
and He did it without any clap-trap of “spiritism” or 
“spiritualism” or anything at all but plain common sense. 
No other earthly visitant ever said or ever could say, “I 
came that they might have life, and that they might have 
it more abundantly.” 

A myth, a creature of the imagination with a possible 
basis in fact, gains in glamor and insubstantiality with 
the passage of time, while it loses in definiteness and 
credibility. Thus Hercules, Jason, Theseus and others 
have had about them a growing nimbus of many incredible 
performances, resulting in discrediting their very existence. 
But behold a modern miracle that shows them to have 
been oustanding men of their times—real men of flesh 
and blood and not gods nor shadows. We owe this dis¬ 
covery to the long-buried literature of a neighboring 
people 1 whose language had been reduced to written form 




while yet the Greek was only a spoken tongue. Tradition 
as usual had dealt kindly with their fame—so generously 

indeed that in process of time they became myths with 
many strange and conflicting stories about them. What 
a contrast this affords to the life and message of the Man 
of Nazareth! Racial myths should be racial favorites, 
seekers of popularity and grateful recipients thereof. But 
Christ shunned popularity—a hindrance to His message. 
He was fair even to the conquering Romans. He scourged 
the scribes and hypocrites as unmercifully as he did the 
money-changers in the temple. It is true that the myth- 
makers have been busy trying to make the world believe 
what they want us to believe regardless of the truth. It 
is all to no purpose—His life contradicts the myth-maker. 
He stands out in clear relief from His background, not 
because of the record but in spite of it. His reality is 
unquestionable because it is beyond the scope of human 

Toleration, Not Compromise 

Christianity is tolerant toward other religions, but it 
must be uncompromisingly Christian. “He that denieth 
Me before men”—Remember the warning, it is imperative. 
It is more than ethics, and inconceivably more than tribal 
ethics. Is it a small matter to any preacher to see Christ 
ranked along with the Jewish rabbis, or perhaps raised 
to the degree of a prophet by those who “stoned the 
prophets”? Is anyone so stupid as to doubt that Jewish 
hostility to Christianity is the same now that it ever has 
been? Again, look at crucified Russia! Judaism is always 
intolerant, but compromising. The fact of racial solid¬ 
arity, which is inescapable, makes it possible to claim to 
be a Christian while remaining a Jew, or to be an American 
while remaining secretly a member of a quasi-state among 


us, and an insidious enemy always. Once let Judaism 
get the upper hand, the numerical power, the financial 
advantage, and there stands revealed before you the as¬ 
sassin, the despot, the Shylock, as unrelenting and un¬ 
merciful as death itself. Behold it in the Talmud, all you 

who may doubt this, or pass through a revolution such 
as many now living have witnessed, and remember that 
“None are so blind as they that will not see.” 

Gentiles, and Christians in particular, are certainly tol¬ 
erant at present toward Judaism and the Jews, however 
much their rabbis may whine about “race persecution” 
and “race prejudice.” It is debatable whether Gentiles 
have ever been intolerant toward the Jews; for hardships 
are not to be confused with persecutions, which are un¬ 
deserved hardships. Parasites are always “persecuted,” 
or deserve to be. The much-advertised “pogroms” in Rus¬ 
sia were no more than a parasite had a right to expect— 
hardships in return for parasitic practices. If a race 
finds a Jew to be obnoxious in manners or otherwise, it 
is not persecution nor prejudice to shun him, nor even to 
use harsh measures to get rid of him. Their alleged per¬ 
secutions have been dinned into our ears till the careless 
have taken them for granted and thereupon have joined 
the Jew chorus of whines and complaints, and even the 
more careful among us have ceased to ask when and where 
and how or why. Centuries ago the persecution of so- 
called heretics was common among all religions. Jews 
suffered along with others, not as Jews but as heretics, 
whether at the hands of Christians, Mohammedans, or even 
of their own kind. These alleged “persecutions,” how¬ 
ever, have not been a total loss; for the Jews have known 
how to turn them into good advertising value. Christian 
pastors in St. Petersburg, Russia, in Tsarist times were 



fairly “besieged,” as one of them expressed it, by Jews 
who wanted to join their churches with the sole object, 
as admiteed, to be allowed by the Russian government 
to live in that city. “Yes, you may join this man’s church,” 
said an old rabbi, “but don’t forget that you are Jews.” 

Exceptions Do Not Count 

Individual Jews may be kind, generous, sympathetic, 
helpful to those not of their kind, as all can testify. 
Possibly they may condemn the policy of their leadership 
—though not in public, nor with convincing zeal. But 
what matters it? A domestic animal might do that much 
as far as its powers allow. Policy also requires the same 
for business reasons. If every Gentile were to be gratified 
by the exemption of his “pet Jew” from the general con¬ 
demnation, the whole race with a few possible exceptions 
would be exonerated from blame. Nevertheless, the thing 
called Judaism would still remain, and nothing would be 
accomplished—the pest would be uncontrolled. And be¬ 
hold what it has done to tolerant Christdom repeatedly, and 
especially what it is doing right now by following its 
leaders such as Karl Marx, and adhering to the teach¬ 
ings of the Talmud. Let this policy control in our atti¬ 
tude toward the whole question: First settle with the whole 
tribe, than deal with individual cases. 

Those Gentiles who defend them with their praise, or 
simply leave them alone in their deviltry, count, undoubt¬ 
edly, on exemption from the effect of their malice. Those 
Gentiles who know their ways and will show them no favor 
above the multitude will be promptly singled out by the 
Jews as the object of their resentment. Let an officer of 
the law treat them as he treats others, with no fear or 
favor for the “chosen race” of law-breakers, and they will 
see to it that his term of office is short. Such public serv- 


ants must be made to feel the wrath of their vindictive 
Jahveh, for he is “a jealous god” and will visit his wrath 

upon those who slight his followers, or show them no 
special favor. Put this to the test, you hard-headed Gen¬ 
tiles who can not open your eyes to what is going on, by 
saying in public or writing for the press the things you 
say against them in private. You know what will follow, 
and therefore you maintain a discreet silence about their 
personal defects as a race, though you know that your 

silence is the counsel of cowardice. You know that vou 


are a coward when you fail to protest against their con¬ 
trol of the daily press, the magazines, the book trade, and 
that the ruth is not permitted to appear in print without 
their consent. Even a slave should be ashamed of such 
servility. And where is the Jewish voice that is raised 
in righteous indignation against this treasonable attack 
upon liberty? It is an abuse of that liberty, so gross as 
to justify the disfranchisement of the whole race. Surely 
a parasite of such vicious character must be incapacitated 
for mischief of any sort, let the means be what they may. 
Jewish “internationalism”? There is no such thing; it 
is arcta’-nationalism everywhere. And anti-nationalism and 
anti-Christ are synonymous terms throughout Christendom, 
and both mean Judaism , the religion (?) of the Jews. 

Indicting a Whole Race 

Was it stupidity or malevolence that loosed upon us 
the false slogan that “we can not indict a whole race”? 
Every time a nation declares war against another nation 
it indicts every member of it with enemy character. It 
can, it must, it does. Are there good people among our 
enemy, friendly to us it may be, who do not wish us any 
harm? Nevertheless they can not be treated as if they 
were of our number, and whoever does so puts his loyalty 



in jeopardy. A people like the Jews, essentially nomadic 
and alien wherever they reside, a people too individualistic 

to become part of another state than their own, will resent 
and resist the claims of that nation upon themselves. Its 
religious cult still further emphasizes its alienation, and 
the personal offensiveness of its individuals makes that 
alienation final—makes the Jews the Ishmaelites of the 

A domestic, secret enemy would never declare war 
openly. For the nation it would preach “pacifism,” but 
practice private warfare against the Gentile’s citizenry of 
the state that shelters it. The Jew is able to make head¬ 
way against the modern political state which must proceed 
by slow and legal processes, while Jewish methods and 
means are concentrated into hidden and dictatorial hands* 
garbed in a so-called religion. Its power is not in its 
own numbers, but in the members of Christian churches 
who have never yet been undeceived as to the true nature 
and objects of this alien cult. We must indict the whole 
race, for the “good Jews” do not denounce the racial 

The Jewish Invasion of the Pulpit 

The last stronghold of free speech and communication 
should be the pulpit, because it is protected by law. But 
the Jew has invaded that also. Here and there we see the 
unmistakable features and hear the characteristic speech 
and doctrine of Judaism. Very little of Christ do you 
hear from them, but much of Moses and the “law,” from 
the Old Testament. More often we see or hear their dupes 
—pastors who are not Jews, calling themselves Christians, 
telling us that “we ought to love the Jews,” and that, 
too, at the same moment that the Jews are planning for 
us the same slaughter that they carried on in Russia. The 


doctrine of “turning the other cheek” was never intended 
for all circumstances, nor was it always followed by 
Christ. To do so would be suicidal. Is the Christian 
pulpit becoming so blind that it is ready to follow the 
lead of the press, the stage, the radio, the movie, right 
into the contaminated camp of Judaism? Can it not see 
that the delusive snare of “pacifism” is intended to entrap 
the unwary preacher and his flock into a disarmament that 
will leave us at the mercy of an enemy among us, bent 
on our destruction? These wolves in sheep’s clothing 
may prate of universal brotherhood, of the fellowship of 
faiths, of pacifism, of resistance to military duty, while 
all the while the preparations go on for the overthrow 
of all that we prize, including the Christianity that Christ 
lived. Fifty years ago all this was hated as “nihilism” 
by the Americans of that date, and now it is listened to 
with tolerance as “communism,” while Judaism gives it 
the blessing of its Jahveh. To “outlaw war” is to give 
a welcome to anarchy or private war; for government rests 
upon force as well as justice. 

Christianity and the Political State 

Christianity is an Occidental religion as a supporter 
of the political state, as opposed to the primitive racial 
state, or tribe. It has always been and must remain on 
the side of law and order, and against the confused mis¬ 
cellany of the “Near East,” a social degeneracy that the 
Jew finds to be his native element. It is the Occident that 
gave the world its first organized political state, thereby 
displacing the ancient tribal state of the Orient, which 
was but a magnified clan. The Jew can never feel at home 
under the Western political systems of Europe and America, 
for he is still a clansman of the primitive type, holding 
to his clan and “boring from within” in his parasitic 



fashion congratulating himself meanwhile that his is 

superior as a system as long as his victim can live to 
afford him sustenance. One can understand his perpetual 
enmity to the modern political states and his persistent 
efforts to tear them down. There is spoil to be found 
sometimes in the ruins, magnificent spoil, and the free¬ 
booter spirit of Joshua to take and occupy “the houses 
they had not built,” and to “reap the fields they hod not 
sown” is still undiminished among them. It was the same 
with the Midianites or Arab tribes who followed, and tried 
to dispossess the Hebrews, but it does not read the same 
in the Hebrew records. The Jewish tribal organization 
is all that the Jew wants for his own purposes, and the 
simple cadi of the Levant, administering a rudimentary 
justice is the germ of his Sanhedrim, or racial tribunal. 
Since that is enough for him he despises the elaborate 
political and judicial systems that he finds among the 
Gentiles, because they are founded on abstract principles 
of justice instead of the racial tie and the dictations of 
personal interest. To be allowed to participate in the 
political and judicial systems of Western civilization gives 
him all the opportunity that he needs to defile and destroy 
them. The religion of Christ is diametrically opposed to 
the cult of the race of Judaism, historically in its origin 
and development, philosophically in its relation to the 
political state, and religiously in its freedom of the spirit 
and its consistency with the ethics of the West in contra¬ 
distinction to the moral decadence of the East. 

Modern Ebionitism 

Ancient Ebionitism, “the earliest of the heresies,” was 
an effort to represent Christ as a member of the Jewish 
race, and His teaching a sect of Judaism. What we have 
just been considering is a revival of Ebionitism—an at- 


tempt to recapture Christianity by Judaism and its con¬ 
verts, by representing Christ to have been nothing more 
than a Jewish rabbi, though slightly peculiar, 1 not to say 
demented. That inded is what some Jewish writers say 
of Him. “They that touch pitch will be defiled,” is a 
saying that applies to all who make concessions to Judaism. 
The earlier Ebionites thought and spoke from their cus¬ 
tomary Judaised background, but the modern Ebionite has 
no such native background and is therefore inexcusable. 
His veneration for past religious instruction has no con¬ 
nection with his own personal history, and therefore it 
may easily be discarded. It was thus that Paul counseled 
the Galatians, a people who had no Jewish background, 
and had no business to be dissuaded from their Christian 
belief by the Judaisers. Anyone who is entrapped by that 
sophistry and allows himself to be persuaded that Chris¬ 
tianity and Judaism are parts of the same faith, to be 
harmonized and reconciled into one, let him go back to the 
synagogue. In the words of Paul, “For him, Christ died 
in vain.” Such a person is but stepping backward into 
a condition nearly two thousand years old, when the Judeo- 
Christians were fraternizing with the writers of the Talmud. 
The next step will land him just outside of the “chosen 
race,” the same that he will be permitted to admire and 
emulate as an outsider, but whom he must not presume to 
approach, for they are too holy to be profaned by his 
presence. Read again the Book of Revelations—a gospel 
of the Ebionites. 

The Importance of Ebionitism to Modern Jewry 

The importance to Judaism of keeping up the decep¬ 
tion which would bury Christ and His message among their 
traditions has been grasped by modern Jewry in its reach 

1—Dr. Joseph Klausner in “Jesus of Nazareth,” p. 264, et passim . 



for world domination. The frantic efforts of the Jews to 
prove their contention is sufficient evidence that the subject 

is vital to their ambitions. One may read it in such works 
as those of Graetz, 1 Klausner and Ludwig. All three of 
these Jewish writers are characterized by the same diseased 
logic that seems to affect the tribal intellect like a species 
of insanity. It is this: they announce as their premises 
a hypothesis that none but themselves can logically accept 
(that is to say, Jewish premises), then proceed to build 
thereupon an argument destitute of foundation. They all 
tell us that Christ was a Jew, but never go back to prove 
it. Klausner clinches the whole matter to his satisfaction 
by quoting the Latin proverb 2 which tells us, in effect, 
that “you can not get something out of nothing,” thus 
assuming that the spiritual message of Christ must per¬ 
force have had an earthly origin, and that it could have 
been nothing else but Jewish. This, of course, is a gratui¬ 
tous assumption with which no one else can agree. 

It is amazing to see, following such an assumption, 
how this writer in the very same paragraph virtually con¬ 
futes his own statement. He says, “Had there not been in 
Jesus’ teaching something contrary to the world-outlook 
of Israel, there could never have arisen out of it a new 
teaching so irreconcilable with the spirit of Judaism!” 
Again, “Though Jesus’ teaching may not have been de¬ 
liberately directed against contemporary Judaism, it cer¬ 
tainly had within it the germs from which there could and 
must develop in course of time a non-Jewish and even 
an anti-Jewish teaching.” Also on the same page, “When 
all is said and done, as is the tree, so is the fruit; and 

1— Professor H. Graetz, “History of the Jews.” 

Dr. Joseph Klausner, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 

Emil Ludwig, “The Son of Man.” 

2— “Ex nihilo nihil fit,” “Jesus of Nazareth,” p. 9. 


from a man’s disciples, and even from his disciples’ dis¬ 
ciples, it is possible to draw conclusions about the original 

It seems incredible that anyone can take two such con¬ 
flicting positions, and attempt to hold to them both, but 
such is the reasoning of Judaism. The false hypothesis 
that Christ was a Jew and His teaching a derivative from 
Judaism is tenaciously held by them. Nevertheless, it is 
observed that “there was something contrary to the world- 
outlook of Israel” in Christ’s teaching, “a new teaching 
so irreconcilable with the spirit of Judaism,” containing 
“within it the germs from which there could and must 
develop in course of time a non-Jewish and even an anti- 
Jewish teaching.” So much for the doctrines of Christ, 
and the fact that it is “irreconcilable” with the spirit of 
Judaism as admitted by a Jewish scholar. The historical 
fact that He was not of the Jewish race is obscured by the 
traditionalists, the Ebionites, and made plausible by a con¬ 
fusion of race and religion , and the traditionalist view is 
the Jewish view, or in other words, the Talmudic view. 

The same writer subsequently, 1 in commenting upon 
various authorities, states as follows concerning the posi¬ 
tion of Adolph Harnack, 1 the most outstanding Christian 
theologian of recent times: 

“There the historical Jew, Jesus, disappears totally: 
virtually every word He taught is made to be of perma¬ 
nent and universal humanitarian interest. The messianic 
features are abolished entirely, and virtually no import¬ 
ance is attached to Judaism in its capacity of Jesus’ environ¬ 
ment: Jesus rose independently and so towered above con¬ 
temporary Judaism as to be untouched by it.” 

1—Klausner, “Jesus of Nazareth,” p. 96. 

The quotation is from Harnack’s latest work (Das Wesen des 






It is utterly preposterous, when we stop to think about 
it, that so many people could be led to believe all these 
centuries that the Savior of the world could come only 
to and through any one certain race . Never mind what 
race it was, whether the lowest or the highest of mankind, 
a heavenly evangel with a self-constituted racial priesthood 
is an absurdity too crude to admit of close inspection. As 
Mark Twain observed in another connection, it would 
“betray a partiality of Providence for an undeserving 
reptile that was open to criticism.” It is not only crude 
and absurd—it is in defiance of all semblance of justice. 
This sanctimonious priesthood of Jewry with its fictitious 
“House of David,” long since extinct in the brothels of 
David and Solomon and their descendants—what an out¬ 
rageous farce it has proved itself to be! 

Granting that the Heavenly Evangel must come to earth, 
His advent could not escape localization. But it does not 
follow that the history and traditions, the religion and 
customs of the spot chosen, should be fastened upon Him 
as a part of His divine heritage and message. On the 
contrary, it does follow that as a Messenger to all the 
world He must be detached from that favored spot and 
freed from localizing influences. The unfitness of Judaism 
for such an advent is conspicuous, except as a contrasting 
background for Divinity among men. 

What that background was like before the time of Christ 
what it was while He was on earth, and what it is now, 
will be considered in the following pages as a necessary 
part of the proof that Christ Was Not a Jew. 


Looking backward from the beginning of the Christian 
Era, nearly two thousand years ago, it would surprise some 
readers to learn that the Hebrews, Israelites, or as we now 
call what is left of them, the Jews, could not have been 

considered at that time to be an ancient race. They do 
not “go back to Adam,” far from it. Civilized man had 
been occupying Palestine a long time before the Jews or 
Hebrews appeared on the scene, demanding the country, 
the fields and the homes of those who owned them; and 
claiming them, moreover, by divine right! Indeed, our 
earliest historical data about the Hebrews can scarcely be 
more ancient than the “Amarna period,” about 1500 B. C., 
and anything prior to that date concerning them must be 
set down as legendary. 

The Land of Sumer 

The original home of the Semites was undoubtedly 
Arabia, now a hot and arid land, while just above its 
curving northern fringe is the “fertile crescent 1 .” The 
western arm of this crescent reaches southward along the 
eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea and is known as 
Palestine. Its eastern counterpart broadens out into the 
valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates—a region anciently 
known as the Land of Sumer, and now called Mesopo¬ 
tamia. Long before the Semites came up out of Arabia 
this eastern arm of the crescent was occupied by a highly 
civilized race known as Sumerians, and it is important to 
remember that they were not Semites. The earliest monu- 

1—Braested, J. H., “The Conquest of Civilization.” 



ments in the Land of Sumer 2 date back some centuries 
before 4000 B. C., and their traditions carry them back 
beyond the legendary flood. At the height of their power 

they exercised dominion as far westward as the Mediter¬ 
ranean Sea, including Asia Minor, and probably Crete and 
other islands of the Aegean civilization. They had a written 
language, the earliest known in Asia, and it was this that 
furnished the basis for the cuneiform of the Assyrians 
many centuries later. They also had a highly developed 
and involved system of worship, which was appropriated 
bodily by the Semites when they arrived. We read that 
“the persistent 3 use of Sumerian in all forms of strictly 
formal worship among the Semitic people of Babylonia 
and Assyria is a remarkable precedent for the use of Latin 
in the Western Catholic Church.” Again, “There were 
liturgical calendars—to be sung on certain days of each 
of the twelve or thirteen months,” also “liturgies concern¬ 
ing the universal sorrows of mankind, private penitential 
psalms, psalms of praise, intercession and confession,” 
and in short, “a well-developed pantheon of Sumerian 
worship.” This “became the national worship of the 
Semites,” and we learn that in course of time some of 
these ideas became “a very vital element in the history 
of the Hebrew idea.” Among these it is more than likely 
that the seven-day week with its rest-day is to be included; 
for the Babylonian Talmud says that “its observance was 
general throughout the East.” Certain it is that these 
Aryan Sumerians, not the Semites, are to be credited with 
the invention of the alphabet, and likewise it is they instead 

2— Encyclopaedia Britannica, see “Babylonia,” “Assyria,” “Mesopo¬ 

Also, Wooley, C. Leonard, “The Sumerians.” 

Also King, L. W., “Sumer and Akkad.” 

3— Encyclopaedia Britannica (see preceding reference). 


of the Hebrews or other Semites who were the religious 
teachers of mankind. The discovery of so many psalms 
in their language is in itself significant, and the Hebrews 

profited by an acquaintance with these sources which they 
derived through the Assyrian 1 language. 

The Sumerians, or Aryans 

Whence came these Sumerians, and why did history 
forget their very existence? It is only within the last 
half century that modern archeology has recovered from 
those buried cities beneath the mounds of Mesopotamia 
what apparently someone had been busy trying to forget 

-namely, a long-standing indebtedness for a wealth of 

culture that the nomadic and uninventive Semites could 
never have originated. Modern scholarship is satisfied 
that they were not indigenous to that land but were immi¬ 
grants ; and as investigation proceeds the proof grows 
stronger that like so many other immigrants into that 
country at a later date they were Aryans from the north. 
Their art shows certain affiliations with that of the Cretans 
and the unsolved mystery of the Aegean civilization. The 
latest work 1 on this subject holds to the view, which is 
well supported by archaeological evidence, that from the 
Land of Sumer they spread eastward to the Indus Valley, 
then turning southward they carried the Sanscrit language 
and the Indo-European culture into India. These Aryans 
came in after times in successive waves of population, the 
people of the white skin, as Medes, Persians, Hittites, 
Phoenicians, Phrygians, Cretans, Trojans, Goths, Carians, 
Scythians, and among them all, those who settled in Pal¬ 
estine and are known to us as Canaanites. Among these 

1—See note 2, end of this chapter. 

1—L. A. Waddell, L.L.D., C.B., C.I.E., “The Makers of Civilization” 




are to be named those mentioned in the scriptures as 
Amorites, Amelekites, Philistines, and many others. These 
were the Aryan races that met the Semites along the entire 
frontage of the “fertile crescent,” that region of fertility 

bounding the arid wastes of Arabia on the north. These 
are the data but recently published (1929), in fuller form 
and with greater certainty than ever before, based as they 
are on rock inscriptions and Indo-Sumerian 2 seals. Not 
the least of the evidence is the development of these north¬ 
ern races in the graphic arts and architecture, in contrast 
with the static-minded Semites, who in common with nomads 
in general, lacked inventiveness, and were forced to borrow 
or remain nomadic, as many of them are to this day. 
Only a few mounds have been excavated thus far, but the 
proofs recovered from the past have carried the research 
beyond the region of a mere working hypothesis. With 
these facts before us it is easy to understand why the his¬ 
tory of this region, coming to us by way of the Semites, 
and especially the Hebrews, has remained silent about the 
Sumerians and allowed them to be forgotten. 

The Semites 

The earliest Semites coming northward out of the desert 
were of the “servile class,” as we are told, and there was 
a slow infiltration of this stock for several centuries. 
Whether they were driven northward by an increasing 
aridity of Arabia, or by a pressure of foes in the rear, or 
lured, as usual, by the hope of plunder and the attractive¬ 
ness therefor of the Land of Sumer, we are at liberty to 
guess. The fact that the Hebrews did the same thing 
many centuries later, and after them likewise the Midianites, 
or Arabs, furnishes a likely clue to the answer if any is 

2—Same, “The Indo-Sumerian Seals Deciphered.” 


needed. By the year 2600 B. C. these early Semites had 
occupied Akkad, a Sumerian city, in such numbers as to 
overwhelm the native population, and thereafter they in¬ 
creased rapidly in numbers and strength. It is the age-old 
story, probably as old as the Semites themselves, of the 

camel that is sure to get completely into the tent if he 
once gets his head inside. In course of time these new¬ 
comers from Arabia were able to appropriate to themselves 
as though they had originated it, the customs and culture 
of their former masters, the Sumerians, in some such man¬ 
ner as the modern “bolsheviks” have “taken over” the 
wealth, the government and the culture of Russia. It is 
believed that these early Semites brought no religion with 
them, or at least no tribal deity. 

Whence Came the Hebrews? 

Of all the Semites who invaded the fertile crescent the 
Hebrews were the latest. Authentic history is wanting on 
the subject till a much later date than that of the legendary 
Abraham, who is represented as having come from “Ur 
of the Chaldees.” Now, the Chaldeeans were the suc¬ 
cessors of the Sumerians in point of occupation of the 
Land of Sumer, and to be reported as one coming from 
Ur of the Chaldees is equivalent to deriving Abraham, and 
consequently the alleged descendants of Abraham, from 
a center of high civilization. This is a favorite device in 
literature, as readers of Vergil are aware, for providing 
a distinguished line of descent, and thus adding lustre to 
the entire race. But there is no sufficient reason to sup¬ 
pose that the Hebrews came elsewhere than by way of 
Arabia from regions more remotely southward. Tacitus, 1 
the Roman historian (A. D. 55-120), commenting on the 

1—Tacitus, “Histories,” Vol. II, p. 264 ff. 



origin of the Jews, has this to say: “Some state that they 
are the progeny of the Ethiopians,” and Strabo, the most 
distinguished geographer of antiquity, supports this view 
and says that Moses was an Egyptian. The remark of 
Tacitus is by no means a wild surmise, owing to the prox¬ 
imity of Arabia to Ethiopia, with only a twenty-mile strait 2 
between them. Moreover, scientific opinion, based upon 
the blood test, can be cited in support of the statement 
as to the African origin of the Hebrews. Furthermore, 
it is a well-known fact that the Hebrews were never popular 
with other Semites, and the same antipathy persists to 
the present day. The Arab may be conquered and his 
land overrun by the enemy, but he does not abandon it— 
barren and unfruitful as it is—for it is his ancestral home¬ 
land, and to leave it would mean the loss of a quality that 
prevents him from becoming a parasite—an international 

The Hebrews in Egypt 

Following the legendary days of the patriarchs the 
Jewish traditions take them down into Egypt to escape 
a severe famine. Here for the first time they approach 
authentic history, for the Egyptians had a system of writ¬ 
ing that served them very well as a means of record. The 
Hebrew nomads, who seem to have had little contact with 
the earlier Semites, came into touch with an ancient civili¬ 
zation which had advanced to the agricultural stage. The 
Egyptians occupied a land which was not super-abundant 
for their own population, nevertheless the newcomers were 
kindly received at first and given a district, or “pale,” in 
which to dwell. In a measure they became civilized, to 
the extent, at least, that they became accustomed to living 

2—Strait of Bab-el*Mandeb; the African Somalis cross it in fragile 
boats as a matter of daily occurrence. 


in one place like an agricultural instead of a nomadic 
people. But the nomadic habit was still strong upon them 
—the habit of living on their flocks and herds—so strong 
that after they left Egypt it took forty years of wandering 
in the wilderness to teach them that if they wanted the 
“flesh-pots” of Egypt they must settle down on the land 
and work for it. The Egyptians were used to hard manual 
labor, and when they required it of the Hebrews, the latter 
made up their minds to go off on a “strike.” They did 
not seem to realize that they had left the comforts of 
civilization behind them and were out in the desert again 
with all its discomforts, and they worried their leader, 
Moses, and especially their tribal Jahveh, till both regretted 
the undertaking, but it was too late to turn back. It is 
a long, long step from the nomadic to the agricultural 
life, and it is doubtful if the Hebrew race ever learned it, 
or ever will. For agricultural life requires a heroic and 
strenuous physical activity, and a well-rounded mentality 
that is beyond the reach of the congenital nomad. 

Their Flight From Egypt 

In preparation for their hasty flight from Egypt we 
have an illustration of Hebrew ethics on a racial scale by 
their own confession. They tell unblushingly of how they 
“spoiled the Egyptians”—in plain speech, they stole from 
them “jewels of gold and jewels of silver, and fine rai¬ 
ment,” and that, too, after Joseph in the capacity of a 
grain speculator had brought down on himself the con¬ 
demnation of the people of Egypt for inordinate greed. 
Worse than all this—such wholesale thievery was at the 
command and under the immediate direction of the deity 
that they worshipped! Do the Jewish rabbis of the present 
day defend such rascality? And what is more to the 
point, do Christian people still condone it, as many of 



them used to do, on the ground that the people of Israel 
were “the Lord’s chosen,” and of course they could do 
no wrong! Can they imagine that Christ would not abhor 
such villainy? Yet this shameful proceeding was the occa¬ 
sion for the origin of the Passover feast, their greatest 
solemnity. Many a skeptical small boy has given his 

Sunday-chool teacher a hard time of it, trying to explain 
things; for what is the difference between such conduct 
and stealing marbles—or anything else, and then blaming 
God for it? 

Anyhow, they say that the Egyptians pursued them, 
not to recover the stolen property as one might suppose 
that they would, but to bring back the Israelites, whom 
nobody has ever wanted. But that is not all of this in¬ 
credible narrative; for, as they tell it, the Red Sea in a 
most accommodating manner facilitated the escape of the 
thieves by opening up all the way across and allowing them 
to pass dryshod to the other side, then, with most obliging 
alacrity, swallowing Pharaoh and his whole army. Could 
the Arabian Nights beat that! And now for the sequel 
to this amazing invention: some of us can remember what 
a stir was created not many years ago when the mummy 
of this same Pharaoh was found decently buried in Egypt, 
and never had been at the bottom of the Red Sea at all. 
What a pity that we have no Egyptian account of these 
remarkable phenomena! 

A Digression 

A digression may be pardoned at this point. A knowl¬ 
edge of the truth does not interfere with the repetition 
of these Hebrew traditions, for a tradition can go right 
on with a contemptuous disregard of proof to the contrary. 
And why not? Repeat an untruth for three thousand years 


and it becomes venerable and therefore respectable, and 
its devotees put on an air of offended dignity whenever 
the accusing facts are presented. Father and grandfather 
and their progenitors for untold generations believed it, 
and therefore it must be so. In fact, many Orientals would 
not be so disrespectful to their ancestors as to doubt it, 
despite the proofs to the contrary. Besides, why should 
the misgivings of one skeptical generation upset the settled 
conviction of centuries of ancestors? And so the ancient 
lie lives on as respectable as ever, sanctified by rabbis, 

and alas by some preachers, and one grows tired of chal¬ 
lenging its right to live on as a sacred myth. There is a 
devil’s maxim which runs like this: “A lie well stuck 
to is as good as the truth.” Those who control the dis¬ 
tribution of what is called “the news” at the present time, 
know the devil’s maxim only too well. Let it not disturb 
anyone that Christ in His time observed the customs of 
Judaism, regardless of the nature of their origin. “Behold 
a sower went forth to sow”—that was His mission, let the 
customs stand or fall. 

A Gentile might be excused for being disrespectful to 
such extravagant nonsense as the Red Sea tradition, except 
as a specimen of outlandish invention. But enough of such 
traditional nonsense is heard in our pulpits to throw dis¬ 
credit where it is not deserved, and thus put the truth to 
blush. Scoffers can not be blamed when they scoff at 
nonsense. Serious-minded people who know and feel the 
need of divine worship can find something more worth 
while than to give ear to primitive myths just because they 
are labeled “sacred.” A myth once canonized is a difficult 
thing to get rid of, for it takes moral courage to reject 
such chaff. Here the digression ends. 



The Invasion of Canaan 

The Hebrews once out of Egypt were forced to find 

a home for themselves elsewhere, and naturally the sandy 
wastes of Arabia, after their sojourn in fertile Egypt, did 
not attract them. So they followed the line of northward 
march of the early Semites which brought them toward 
the fertile crescent, and more particularly the western side 
of it, the delectable land of Palestine. Spies were sent 
forward and returned with glowing reports. But it had 
been inhabited by a civilized race for many years, and it 
would mean a struggle to dislodge and dispossess them 
These were the strange white races of the north, the Aryans 
known to them as Canaanites, whose occupancy of the 
land covered “milleniums 1 of civilization.” But this did 
not deter the Hebrews, for rather it incited their love for 
loot, for they saw before them the fulfillment of the 
“promise” to “live in houses that they had not built.” 
They prudently delayed their intended invasion till they 
felt a little more sure of themselves. And all in good 
time, they found their tribal deity, Jahveh, the same whom 
they credited with their escape from Egypt with their 
precious loot, telling them to go ahead, take all that they 
wanted, and spare not the Canaanites, for it had all been 
promised to their ancestor, Abraham, anyhow. In fact, 
it is hardly to be doubted that the legendary Abraham 
might have been invented as a “legal fiction,” to borrow 
a modern phrase, in order to justify their claim to the 
property that they meant to take. 

It is a sad fact that the human animal in search of 
better pastures has always shown a certain contempt for 
the rights of those in possession of a happier lot. It is 
the ancient rule of force, and force alone, that is likely 

1—See Note 2, end of this chapter. 


to govern, especially when the raider is both hungry and 

unscrupulous. All the Semites moving northward met the 
far more civilized Nordics moving southward for similar 
purposes, and the fertile crescent was the battle-ground 
between them. But in the Hebrew raid into Palestine it 
was Semite against Semite in the Biblical account—a mis¬ 
taken account in that particular, however—so the Hebrew 
must needs invoke the aid of his tribal deity, Jahveh, and 
put him in the delicate position of assisting the radiers. 
However, these were petty details for a tribal deity such 
as theirs to overcome, since right or wrong had nothing 
to do with the case. Suffice it to say that after many years 
of struggle the Hebrews, most of them, crossed the Jordan 
and established themselves in western Palestine, though 
without totally obliterating the Canaanite as their Jahveh 
had commanded. Then came a long period in which every¬ 
one “did that which was right in his own eyes,” as nomads 
are likely to do, under the leadership of so-called “judges,” 
similar to the same functionary now known in the East 
as a “cadi.” It was what one would expect from a nomadic 
people gradually settling down in conquered territory, and 
thus acquiring a more settled habitation than before. As 
they became more settled they demanded a more organic 
form of government, and it was thus that they set about 
to find a king. Saul was chosen at a venture, then came 
David, Solomon and Rehoboam, under the last of whom 
occurred the division into the northern kingdom of the 
ten tribes, the Kingdom of Israel, and the southern of the 
remainder known as the Kingdom of Judah, and with that 
the history of Galilee begins. 

The Cultural Background of Judaism and the Jews 

“A stream must rise from a source higher than itself,” 
and Judaism, as we shall see, is by no means an exalted 



source, and it is ridiculous to name it in that connection, 
for it is more like a cesspool than a spring of living water. 
Judaism is but an accidental background to Christianity 
and its Founder. Hence, a closer examination of this back¬ 
ground shall claim our attention at this point, leaving 

historical considerations aside as subsidiary thereto. In 
doing this the ugly truth must be presented as a matter 
of necessity. 

The Hebrew language employed three different words 
to convey the concept of deity, namely, Elohim, Adonai 
and Jahveh. Elohim is a generic term, probably intro¬ 
duced from some earlier source than Judaism. Adonai 
is usually translated “Lord,” and is substituted for the 
word Jahveh, which was held to be too sacred to be spoken, 
though this reverence or reticence might be accounted for 
on grounds less decent. Jahveh was the special deity of 
the Hebrew race, and cared little, if anything, for man¬ 
kind in general. It is true that some of the prophets did 
their best to universalize the Jahveh concept of divinity, 
but they failed to popularize that doctrine among a people 
convinced of their own superiority, and their preeminent 
right to the divine favor beyond that of all mankind. It 
was a deified selfishness. Jahveh was on their side in all 
their battles (when they succeeded), or the fault was theirs 
when they failed, and the mind of Jahveh had to be dis¬ 
covered and his wrath appeased. Ethnic or racial religions 
were the rule rather than the exception in that earlier 
time, hence this racial exclusiveness, though irrational, 
ought not to surprise us. If it be said that modern nations, 
even though Christian, are scarcely dissimilar, it is to be 
replied that Christ put Right above self, in both nation 
and individual. But with Judaism, the “chosen race” 
fetish had been dinned into willing ears for too long a 


time, and the people could not be made to forget it. In¬ 
deed, some of their prophets and “judges” made good use 
of it for their own purposes, as did Joshua, Samuel, Gideon 
and others. Their Jahveh can hardly be distinguished from 
a magnified Jew, the personification of their race, the em¬ 
bodiment of Jewish needs, desires, ambitions, and that, 
too, exclusively. Conversely it was his sole right to casti¬ 
gate them with the tongues of their prophets, which the 
latter did more or less effectively—but the race remained 
the same changeless mass. This traditional concept of 
deity dates back as far as the Abraham legend, and how 
much farther we do not know. The magnificent promises 
to the legendary Abraham of other people’s homes and 
possessions may have had an earlier beginning, for Arabia 
is a lean and hungry land, and its inhabitants have always 
been accustomed to the use of force in order to satisfy 
their pressing needs. But the primitiveness of the rite 
of circumcision is not only prehistoric—it goes back to 
times that might be called post-simian, since it is by no 
means confined to the Hebrew race, but belongs also to 
other primitives. The antiquity of this practice, together 
with the denial of property rights to those outside of their 
race, still persist as fundamental characteristics of Judaism, 
for they are embedded in the racial nature of the Jew to 
an ineradicable degree. One may read in the Talmud today 
that none but Jews have any right to private property 
whatsoever. Quotations to that effect will be found in 
the final chapter of this volume. 

Hebrew Dualism—Not Monotheism 

It is inconceivable how any rational person, aside from 
blind traditionalism, can associate the Hebrew concept of 
deity with the teachings of Christ. Let that sink in deep. 
The gap between Judaism and Christianity is profound. 



It can not be bridged without sacrilege to the latter. They 
are as different from each other as the Zeus of Homer, 
made up of human frailties and passions, was different 
from the Zeus of Socrates, who in 399 B. C. was put to 
death for trying to purify the Grek idea of religion. Ety¬ 
mology, as every philologist knows, is a very unsafe guide 
in tracing the “faded meanings” of words from one age 
to another. Thus, Jahveh is a primitive concept of deity, 
and Jehovah is merely a verbal derivative therefrom; and 
it can not be argued from this as a basis that the Jahveh 
of Judaism is the Jehovah of later times as a religious 
concept. They are ethically and logically too remote from 
each other to be reckoned as one and the same. Is Juda¬ 
ism monotheistic, as so many people believe? By no 
means . For its deity, Jahveh, is both a good and a bad 
deity—a dualism, a modified Zoroastrianism, with its 
Ormuzd and Ahriman combined in one personality, for 
the proof of which the Old Testament will furnish all 
needed evidence. It could not be otherwise when a deity 
shows such partiality for any one people. Mohammed¬ 
anism is nearer akin to Judaism than is Christianity, for 
“Allah is great,” say the Moslems, but they do not under¬ 
take, as Christ did, to say that God is good, and that the 
evil in the world is contrary to His will. 

The Gospel of Indecency 

If anything further were needed to drive this difference 
home it is to be found by all decency-loving people in the 
indecencies of Judaism. It needs to be repeated for the 
sake of emphasis that the terms in which the Jewish part 
of the Old Testament are conveyed are not to be uttered 
in public, to say nothing of public worship. They plainly 
portray the low level of the population, and likewise the 
priesthood, whence they came. It was characteristic of 


Judaism as it still is—this downward drag upon the desire 
to be decent and to love decent thoughts and things— 
this insistent facing of the vulgar, the offensive and dis¬ 
gusting facts of life, as though it were needful to keep 
our noses over a cesspool. It is a racial cult that retains 
to this day the vestigial traits of a prehistoric fetishism. 
The significance of circumcision, which they have elevated 
to a religious rite, goes back to the dim barbarism of a 
far-reaching antiquity, its particularism indicating the 
origin of the Jahveh worship, with a nexus to an animal 
past that civilized man has discarded long ago. It is the 
consciousness of this nexus that ties them to earth with 
its inescapable pruriency. They try to defend it on sani¬ 
tary grounds— an argument that applies only to those 
who are physically and morally unclean. Tacitus 1 tells 
us that in his time “the Hebrews were a people of un¬ 
bridled lust.” Jahveh worship, chosen race worship, and 
sex worship are all expressions of the same libidinous cult 
of Judaism. Let those call it religion who are of that 
religious level. 

The Prophets and the Writings 

Into the midst of the dark, narrow and forbidding 
scenes as depicted in the Old Testament, stalked from time 
to time the lone figure of some austere prophet, reproving 
the people sharply for their sins regardless of rank or 
condition, preaching repentance and needed reformation, 
and backing up his message with a “Thus saith the Lord.” 
Of couse he knew and his hearers knew that he knew, that 
this was only a set formula for the prophet’s own message 
whenever he was in deadly earnest, and not that “the 
Lord” had told him—except through his conscience—to 
say anything at all. It is only we literal-minded Occi- 

1—Tacitus, Histories, Vol. II, p. 264 ff. 



dentals who take it that God actually came down to earth 
and spoke familiarly to the Preacher of righteousness. 

Students of the Hebrew language, and of Oriental ways of 
thought and expression in general, know this very well. 
Such miracles, if miracles they be, are common enough 
in the experience of modern ministers of the gospel when 
they live close enough to the source of inspiration, but it 
is scarcely becoming in them to say that “the Lord” told 
them to say thus and so. People who take their Scriptures 
literally, word for word as “verbally inspired,” must go 
back to the originals for the precise meaning of the words. 
And even then they are obliged to hold “the Lord” re¬ 
sponsible for many unseemly things that a real deity could 
hardly be expected to be guilty of doing. The Western 
mind must be prepared for Oriental ways of thinking and 
expression if it is to avoid a violent distortion of the 
facts in many instances. 

Wonderful men were those old prophets, considering 
their times and circumstances, and they did their feeble 
best to spiritualize their message and raise their racial 
cult to a higher level. But they used the lash of their 
tongues in vain for the most part, and died sorrowing over 
the sins of the “stiff-necked” (mulish) generation, that 
could be taught only by the calamities they suffered. The 
prophets are the outstanding figures in Hebrew history, 
due in part to their courageous zeal for the right as they 
saw it, and in part to their repulsive background. But 
the logic of the facts was against them. It was the cult 
of a prehistoric past. They could make but little headway, 
and no permanent progress, against it. 

Other Sources 

The Hebrews received some spiritual gleams from the 
Sumerians, possibly also from intervening sources, such 


as the Chaldeans, Babylonians and Assyrians. They were 
under the tutelage of the Egyptians, a race that was notably 
preoccupied with preparations for the future life. Moses, 
“learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” could not 
fail to have known of the wonderful priest-king, the 
Pharaoh Akhenaten, or Ikhnaten, who gave us the Nine¬ 
teenth psalm, and risked his life and his kingdom to con¬ 
vert his people to monotheism. The Ten Commandments’ 1 
and probably more of “the spoils of Egypt,” have been 
handed down to us in the Hebrew tongue, and retailed to 
us moderns as evidence of the spiritual-mindedness of a 

race which is notorious for its gross materialism. The 
Hebrews were industrious borrowers, and within a limited 
range they borrowed with discrimination and they prob¬ 
ably improved the literary quality in the borrowing. They 

have transmitted to us the Book of Job, where the internai 
evidence betrays a Mesopotamian origin, also parts of the 
Book of Genesis, the Psalms, and various other passages. 

Limitations in Language 

Every race is moulded in thought and expression by 
the wealth or poverty of its language. For we are all 

prisoners to our power of speech. The ancient Hebrew 
language was remarkably primitive—“About like Choc¬ 
taw,” as one professor of that language put it. Now, any 
language above the level of a mere dialect ought to have 
a “tense system” to denote clearly the time of action. But 
the ancient Hebrew had no such system—nothing but a 
form for completed action and another for incomplete 
action, and no future at all! It had to rely on the “in¬ 
complete” to convey both present and future sense, leav¬ 
ing the reader to guess which was meant, with nothing but 
a sign for a preceding word to assist the choice of time. 



These observations give emphasis to the fact that the use 
of that language involves turning one’s back upon the 
future, either as a matter of custom or of choice of those 
who use it. Certain it is that the Hebrew frame of mind 
in ancient times had little regard for principles of conduct 
unless they were written in the law. 

Another characteristic of the Hebrew language is its 
unusual facility for expressing intense feeling or emotion. 
Orientals in general, especially those of the “Near East,” 
have a well-deserved reputation in contrast with Occidentals 
for uncontrolled passion. Now, emotional language is 
the only kind given to other animals than man—such as 
growls, whines, snarls, barks, screams, shrieks, cries and 
songs. The point to these remarks is this: the Hebrew 
verb is not content with giving merely the thought to be 
expressed in the active and passive voice. It also has an 
intensive form for the expression of additional emotion. 
It is not enough for a Hebrew to say I hate when he wants 
to say I do hate, so a special form of the verb is provided 
therefor. Thus there is both an active form and an inten¬ 
sive active, a passive and an intensive passive, a reflexive 
and an intensive reflexive—a strange superabundance of 
emotional forms for a language too poor to afford a tense 
system, and has no future at all. It is no mere quibble 
in syntax to show the shortcomings of a language when 
it sets the limits for the expression of thought of the people 
who use it, or reveals the animal quality of the vehicle. 

The Background of Jewish Mentality 

A study of Jewish mentality gives one a strange realiza¬ 
tion of a persisting uniformity of type. Allowing for in¬ 
dividual variations among them, there is nevertheless a 
typical Jewish physique, as well as mentality that we all 
know and recognize. The features to be seen on the streets 


today may be seen on the Assyrian and Egyptian monu¬ 
ments of three thousand years ago. And this persistence 
of type, moreover, is notwithstanding the Canaanitish in¬ 
crements of Hittite, Amorite, Amelekite, Moabite, and all 
other strains alien to this race, all of which disappear in 

the Jewish mass, leaving it remarkably uniform. The dis¬ 
appearance is as complete as when a white unites with a 
black, the white disappears forever. One result is that 
the Jewish type remains, and must remain, an alien to the 
Aryan, just as one species of animals is different from 
another, though of the same genus. Another result is 
that incidentally it enables us to generalize when speaking 
of them over wide stretches of time; for what they were 
in the era of the patriarchs, we find them with superficial 
changes and occasional exceptions in these, our times. 
It is unnecessary to average them up, since the mass is 
composed of individuals so alike that most any one of 
them will do for the average. Deviations from that type 
are quite pronounced before they can meet with acceptance 
outside of the racial group—a fact that tends strongly 
toward racial cohesiveness. Persecutions ordinarily drive 
all of a group together, intensifying their cohesion. But 
with the Jew the opposite kind of treatment has precisely 
the same result. Given every opportunty to disintegrate 
as a race—as has been the case in the United States until 
recently—they seize the occasion to solidify their ranks, 
complain of “race persecution” and “race discrimination” 
where none exists, seeking thus to justify their role as a 
parasitic race, while denying it with a great show of in¬ 
dignation. So determined is this attitude among them that 
it is now doubtful if the Jew could be allowed to depart 
from his racial solidarity, and consequently from his para¬ 
sitic character. Having acquired this character to such a 



degree that he finds it extremely profitable, he is content 
to remain a perpetual alien until the time when he brings 
upon himself the natural culmination of such a course. 
Such a stability of type is not to be expected except among 
other ancient forms of life. For as students of life his¬ 
tory are well aware, the farther we go back toward the 
beginning of life the more fixed and unvarying we find 
it, and the longer the period needed for variations to take 
place. So it is also with the static-minded races of man¬ 
kind, such as the Semites in general. 

Jewish Animalistic Mentality 

It would be folly to forget this close relationship be¬ 
tween the Jewish mentality and that of the lower animals, 
especially as it approaches the sphere of moral judgments. 
The outstanding feature of that likeness is the inability or 
unwillingness of the Jew to distinguish between right and 
wrong abstractly . As in the Talmud, an ethical formula 
is set up and elaborated in great detail, and then the world 
is told that it is for the benefit of Jews only . All others 
are denominated Gentiles or Goyim, which are terms of con¬ 
tempt. Now, these are the ethics of the tribe, the herd, 
the drove, the pack, the gangsters and thugs among men— 
in short, of animal or prehuman society. It is the ethics 
of the “chosen race,” the fetish that holds them down 
ethically to the level of the beast. Whenever they depart 
from it, as occasional individuals do, it is an act of violence 
to the ethics of the tribe. It is contrary to their policy 
for herd survival, hence the mass holds together in the 
main. The ethics of a pack of wolves toward a flock of 
sheep, or of any beast of prey toward its intended vic¬ 
tims, is no more and no less than that of the Talmud toward 
Gentiles. The Jewish expounder of the “relativity theory,” 
if consistent therewith, would tell us that there is no right 


or wrong, good or evil, true or false, but that these are 
merely relative terms, and that the Will of God has nothing 
to do with the case. 

In modern society, to go no further back, the nation 
takes the place of the herd; and international law (which 
the Jew secretly despises) presupposes nations or political 
groups, since mankind advances in groups. Christianity 
is the mother of International Law, which seeks to con¬ 
duct international relations subject to Christian principles. 
But Judaism, while shouting for “internationalism,” is an 
cmfr-nationalist, an outlaw and a parasite among the na¬ 
tions with no national standing nor right thereto. The 
success of the modern political state or nation is a success 
against nihilism, and the death of Judaistic political ambi¬ 
tion to rule the world. Let this be but once realized fully 
and the animalistic mentality of Judaism will meet its 
usual rebuke. The pack or gang will be curbed, if not 

Jewish Mentality Asymmetrical 

Jewish mentality is not of the comprehensive type. It 
sacrifices symmetry by concentrating in given directions 
to the prejudice of mental proportion. It is noteworthy 
that the Jew cares little for purely cultural studies, the 
classics, the humanities, but prefers to specialize on utili¬ 
tarian subjects and the material rewards thereof. Unless 
an education has a money value it is disesteemed. In the 
world of affairs he is deservedly known as a superb trader, 
specializing, like the despised Chettys of India, in bank¬ 
ing, finance and usurious practices. As an adjunct to com¬ 
mercial success he is a close student of the demand side 
or human nature, and he keeps close to the sales end of 
the trading rather than the more adventurous production 
end, where the greater risk lies and the greater sense of 



industrial freedom is enjoyed. Thus he is not so much 

a creator of values as he is an accumulator of values, and 
he is a business wrecker or a business builder, according 
to whichever will yield him a personal profit. Yet the 
ordinary Jew is too great a spender to become a great 
hoarder except in certain noteworthy instances, and these 
he regards as ideals. His acqusitiveness knows no bounds, 
and in general, no principles. Only the law is his guide 
in business, and the law can often be circumvented, as 
he knows very well. He knows, too, that if he is deficient 
in any one direction his advertising ability can be relied 
on to cover the deficit. The financial emoluments are all 
that he requires, and he is sadly deficient in a devotion to 
the work for the work’s sole sake. Such an unbalanced 
mentality naturally overloads the race with mental abor¬ 
tions like Weishaupt and Karl Marx, and others of less 

Love of Publicity 

Publicity is a passion with a Jew, and privacy, except 
in his business, has little value that he cares for. And 
since he cares little for privacy for himself he denies it 
to others, and makes merchandise of the most sacred feel¬ 
ings of anyone whom he seeks to entrap as a victim. Every¬ 
thing is to be brought out for the public to gaze upon, 
just as if life were an oriental bazaar, and the vulgariza¬ 
tion of its most intimate details were something that the 
public had a right to demand. A Jew-controlled press is 
a modernization of what the ancient Greeks meant in their 
concept of the Harpies, whose touch was pollution itself. 
“Yellow journalism” began with the Jews, and sensation¬ 
alism is its chief stock in trade. Just as the news is vul¬ 
garized into sensationalism, so is art defiled by modernism, 
music by cheap salacious emotionalism, and the movie, 


radio and theatre follow in the wake of the beast. If it 
were not too obvious already it would be in order to con¬ 
trast all this with the refining influence of Christianity on 

art, architecture, music, home and motherhood, charities, 
government, and even the humanization of warfare as com¬ 
pared to what we may read in the Old Testament where 
the whole noncombitant population was as a rule doomed 
to slaughter. 

Mental Concentration 

Mental concentration is a vaunted quality among the 
Jews. But concentration is nothing more than the fixation 
of attention, and if this is of any value it must be accom¬ 
panied by other qualities of mind to justify the concen¬ 
tration. Hence, concentration alone is not necessarily a 
mark of a high order of intelligence. A cat on a still 
hunt can give anybody lessons in concentration, and pa¬ 
tience in that pursuit is also a feline virtue. The same is 
true of other creatures of fur and feathers in respect to 
powers of eye, ear and nose, for it is only by specializa¬ 
tion of these organs of sense that they are able to find their 
food or elude their enemies. Quick and skillful coordina¬ 
tion of the muscles with eye and ear are also necessary 
to such creatures, just as it is necessary for the skillful 
playing of musical instruments, in which the Jews are 
notably proficient. If primitive man was ever gifted with 
these magnified sense perceptions, it was the loss of them 
that marked his rise to greater freedom from the need of 
them, the freedom from fear and anxiety, when by the 
use of a greater intelligence he rose above the level of 
the emotions in a measurable degree to become a man. 
Evidently the Jew has kept closer to the animal plane, 
intent on securing his prey, than others have done by de¬ 
veloping a more comprehensive mentality. Providence 



for the future is praiseworthy; but he whose life is spent 
in satisfying only bodily wants may get what the beast 
does and no more. 

Analytical Mindedness 

Another Jewish boast is that they are analytical rather 
than synthetical minded. Granted. The analytical mind 
concerns itself with taking things apart, while the mind 
that is synthetic busies itself with putting things together. 
The former is destructive in inclination, the latter is con¬ 
structive. Analysis properly precedes synthesis only in 
connection with mechanistic problems, and life is not 
mechanistic. In problems of social science, political 
science and economics the Jew is not by nature qualified 
to participate, except in mechanistic problems, such as 
currency, banking, accounting and statistics. None but 
a fool or a criminal would tear down an existing govern¬ 
ment to replace it with a trial theory of his own, for a 
government is a growth out of human experience, and the 
racial qualities and ambitions as well as traditions of its 
people. If it is vandalism to destroy a Parthenon or a 
Christian cathedral, how much more is it the act of vandals 
to destroy a state, which is the embodiment of the history, 
traditions, culture, aims and ambitions of its people! But 
the Jew has demonstrated over and over again in the last 
three thousand years both his inability to build a lasting 
state of his own, and his meddlesome incapacity to share 
in the social structure of others. Brooding, for instance, 
over the faults of what he calls “capitalism,” he throws 
patience to the winds, tears the whole living organism to 
pieces, and with no demonstrated constructive ability of 
his own he frames a structure which he calls a “soviet,” 
built upon the untold suffering of millions of men, women 
and children. Such is the political wisdom of a race that 


anciently decided by casting lots its most vital matters 

of state! Is the Jew analytical? So is a fire, and all it 
leaves is ashes. It was a German historian who said, “The 
Jew is the effervescence of social decay.” 

Parental Immortality 

One must accept the premises of the Oriental on this 
subject to make his reasoning clear—namely, that death 
ends all. There are racial exceptions to this attitude, but 
it is not clear that the Jews are among the exceptions. 
The expectation of life after death is taken for granted 
in the Christian religion, as well as among those Orientals 
who are heirs to the influence of the Indo-European. No 
one else ever spoke with such definite and positive assurance 
on this point as did Jesus Christ. But the Oriental in 
general clings to the material existence, the life that now 
is, as the one life to be contemplated. The people of the 
East are bound to the logic of the facts which they can 
see and handle. To secure the means of living is impera¬ 
tive—otherwise they starve. A Chinaman must have a son 
to keep him in his old age when he can work no more; 
because saving enough for that end is impossible with 
the mass. And that son must be taught to revere him— 
hence ancestor worship. Why talk about the materialism 
of the West? It is the East that is crass with materialism, 
forced upon it by limited living conditions. It is the West 
that has leisure for things divorced from materialism. 
Immortality? The East can comprehend best a quasi¬ 
immortality, which takes shape in its own children. The 
spirit or soul—who has seen it? The East can not com¬ 
prehend it—no more could the Jews comprehend Christ 
when He told them, “My kingdom is not of this world.” 
The Talmud knows nothing of this in its oft-repeated ex¬ 
pression, “the world to come”—a material, earthly world 



which their messiah is to establish, and in which Gentiles 
have no part. 

Force and Justice 

“All government is founded on these two sanctions— 
force and justice,” was the dictum of an early authority 
on political science. It may be added that justice alone 
is insufficient, because justice unaided by force can not 
put her own decrees into execution; and force alone is 
insufficient because force unguided by justice is self-de- 
structive. These two must coexist and supplement each 
other. Much is said in the Old Testament about justice, 
but progress in the development of that concept was in¬ 
significant as long as their own racial deity, Jahveh, was 
a god of favoritism, partiality for his own “chosen race.” 
And of course, they could not be persuaded to reject that 
partiality for themselves, for it was so comforting to their 
pride and self-complacency to think of themselves as so 
highly favored. A prophet might say to them, “What 
doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly,” etc.; but 
their scribes and Pharisees and rabbis could say (in the 
Talmud, of course) that the prophet did not include the 
“Goyim,” and only the “chosen” were addressed. Is this 
still the attitude of the Jews? Hear the words of a New 
York judge when asked, “Does the Jew want justice or 
special favor?” “Special favor every time,” replied the 
judge; “justice is the last thing he does want.” In the 
New Testament the concept of righteousness displaces the 
concept of justice in view of the liberality of Providence— 
“Good measure, pressed down and shaken together”—so 
why haggle over the terms of strict justice? 


By traditionalism more is meant than the mere pos¬ 
session of traditions or legends, cherished as a legacy of 


the past and defended with dogged tenacity. It betokens 
a mental attitude, a living in the past—turning the back 
upon the future except for the interests and the needs of 
the moment. It takes the form of an obsession for heredity 
with a long list of “begats,” and is common among a 
number of African tribes—more likely to prevent a devia¬ 
tion toward a betterment of type than to preserve or origi¬ 
nate good ones. It results in a tiresome monotony of 

creatures, a stereotyped individual in physical appearance 
and in mental processes; and when restricted by a long 
course of inbreeding it leads straight toward deterioration. 
If evidence is wanted, watch the crowd milling along Sixth 
Avenue, New York, through the fur and clothing district, 
and enough undersized, deformed individuals will be seen 
to demonstrate what the “chosen race” worship leads to. 
If this is not enough, consult the statistics on hereditary 
insanity, and judge whether race has anything to do with 
its pecentages. 

The Hebrew Messiah Tradition 

The messiah tradition of the Hebrews is rather Jewish 
than Hebrew, for it is not ancient enough to be called 
Hebraic. It does not go back to the time of Moses, nor 
even to the time of David, for its beginnings can not be 
discovered prior to the subjugation of the northern king¬ 
dom by Sargon in 722 B. C. There was nothing left of 
what had been the kingdom of David and Solomon except 
the kingdom of Judah, the inhabitants of which were there¬ 
after called Jews. It was 125 years after that, and then 
again ten years later, namely, 597 and 587 B. C., that the 
southern kingdom, Judah, with its capital at Jerusalem, 
fell to the power of Babylon, and a large body of its 
people were carried away to that city. Some few made 



good their escape to Samaria and Galilee, and a far larger 
number were left by the Babylonians as not worth bother¬ 
ing with. There was no longer a nation in either country, 
for both were now subjugated completely, though the 
northern nation was left undisturbed. Despair was su¬ 
preme, and well might Jeremiah, down in Jerusalem, pour 
forth his lamentations. The glory of the reign of David 
and Solomon had departed long before, and now the king¬ 
dom itself was no more. Could it ever be restored? Was 
Jahveh forever to be without his place of worship? Could 
not Jahveh himself restore the chastened nation, and would 
he not do so? Then there were those others of that north¬ 
ern kingdom whom Sargon had carried away—could they 
also be brought back? 

“The wish was father to the thought” in this case, 
as is likely to happen. But verily a mighty deliverer 
would be needed for such an accomplishment, and the 
hopes and aspirations of the race were intensified at the 
thought of it into a patriotic zeal. They had no reason 
to expect human help, for they had never been popular 
enough with their neighbors to deserve it. Surely it was 
time for their prophets to call upon Jahveh to send them 
a leader, and they certainly did so. The task was super¬ 
human, therefore an adequate leader must come from 
Jahveh, if not Jahveh himself. Just so might the Greeks 
at about this epoch have begged Zeus to descend from 
Olympus and lead them to victory over their enemies, or 
send a trusted assistant for the purpose. Under such con¬ 
ditions the thought born of the wish naturally produced 
the national hero who was to bring the needed leader for 
the captive people—produced him as an ideal, not yet 
realized. He must be the great protagonist of the race, 
gifted with magic power if need be, endowed with all that 


a fertile imagination could bestow upon him. Great was 
to be the glory of Israel (they still call themselves Israel) 
when Shiloh came. 

The prophets, indeed, had other longings for their 
people than a mere restoration of their nationality, so 
they endowed the longed-for leader with the attributes of 
sanctity, of deity even. Isaiah, in particular, became en¬ 
raptured over his expected, or at least hoped for, earthly 
advent, as he described the coming Messiah in those well- 
known words. But to the people this deliverer remained 
a glorified general and statesman, a wonder-worker, as he 
needs must be to accomplish what to them was apparently 
impossible. In addition to this, the legitimists—to borrow 
a modern term—such as the scribes, priests and lawyers, 
held that the Messiah must be of the line of David in 
order to be the heir to the throne of David. They con¬ 
fronted Christ with this same doctrine about five hundred 
years later. Hence, a combination of power that was more 
than human was necessary for the deliverer, together with 
the divine attributes that the prophets longed for, and 
finally the royal descent from David that the legitimists 
demanded—all these must the Messiah embody in him¬ 
self. The line of David, as historians tell us, had been 
a long time extinct, but that would hardly prevent the 
legitimists from insisting on their point. 

What is important to notice about this Jewish messiah- 
ship is that it had nothing to do necessarily with religion 
as we conceive of that term. It was just patriotism, na¬ 
tionalism, precisely as if we Americans were to long for 
the coming of a great military and political genius to 
deliver us in case of dire need. We could surely depend 
upon our ministers to clothe him with divinity if our 
nation were in such straits as were the Jews at that time. 
If the Jews comprehended in their cult such concepts as 



religion, patriotism, ethics of the tribe and economic wel¬ 
fare, knowing what we do of their Jahveh worship, we 
must not suppose that the messiah they looked for had 
anything to do with the doctrine of immortality. They 
wanted and badly needed what the Jewish race has never 
had and can not realize, namely, political stability. Their 
political leader, or dictator, must be a heavenly visitant, 
because they have not the faith in mankind, nor the con¬ 
stancy of purpose, nor the belief in justice and fair play 
that are necessary to enable any people to govern them¬ 
selves. They could not get along peaceably with Moses, 
their lawgiver. David, their most successful ruler, if we 
remain silent as to his private life, found it necessary to 
crush rebellion at home, a rebellion that was directly 
traceable to his own misdeeds. The so-called theocracy 
of Judaism was not the result of deliberate choice, nor a 
system imposed from above; it was only a nondescript 
regime resulting from their own racial incompetence in 
self-government. A messiah was more than a temporary 
necessity to rescue their nation from bondage, for he was 
a permanent need. It is safe to say that whatever may 
be the future of the Jewish race, they will always be look¬ 
ing for a messiah, and would be greatly nonplussed if 
or when he came. That much is evident from what hap¬ 
pened in the present instance. 

The Aryan Deliverer 

For it was the unexpected that happened—a deliverer 
actually came, not the kind looked for, probably, because 
he came from a strong, virile, Gentile nation. It was 
Cyrus, the Persian. He it was who overwhelmed Babylon 
and sent the Jews back to Judea. These were not the ten 
tribes whom Sargon had deported from Galilee, for they 
never came back, but the Jews only, and they were returned 


to what had been the southern kingdom with its capital 
at Jerusalem. Cyrus probably had his own reasons for 

wanting them out of his largest city, though many of them 
were too well satisfied to leave. But certain archaeolo¬ 
gists have hinted that Cyrus took this method of returning 
a favor to the Jews for value received. For it has been 
established that even as prisoners in Babylon the Jews 
carried on a lively commerce with Persia, and in this way 
it was easy for important military information to leak 
out to Cyrus. The facts so far known give basis for 
believing that this is something more than a working 
hypothesis, designed to explain the otherwise extraordinary 
conduct of a totally disinterested monarch. 

The Hebrew Messiah a Political Need 

Persia in course of time was overthrown by Alexander 
the Great, and that meant a new master for the Jews— 
and of course another messiah. Later came the Romans 
with their hard and fast notions of legality and their rigid 
proceedure in administration, to which Orientals in gen¬ 
eral and Jews in particular were utter strangers in thought 
and deed. Then were the “chosen people” afflicted be¬ 
yond measure. They had no conception of the nature of 
a political state, and no use for anything beyond the primi¬ 
tive tribe or herd, as they are today, led by their racial 
Jahveh. It was a situation that encouraged ambitious 
rebels against the Romans to head many ambitious revolts 
as self-styled messiahs, and of course they all came to 
grief. In a test of military strength the loosely organized 
tribe has no show whatever against a compact and sys¬ 
tematic political state, such as was the Roman Empire. 

It is not to be supposed that if the most perfect Being 
this world has ever seen should come among them—as 
He actually did—such a race at such a time would be 



able or willing to recognize Him. His source was too high 
and His message too foreign for their comprehension, His 
danger was that they would try to drag Him down to their 

level as a national messiah, like many another at the same 
time, and this indeed is just what they tried to do. It 
would seem that every possible obstacle to His mission 
was to be overcome—and they were overcome, though it 
cost His life. Alas that Christianity at this late date 
should liken Him to the messiah of the Jews! 


An extract from The Book of the Dead (Egyptian) > 
early Amarna period, 1580*1350 B. C. Edited by Sir E. A. 
Wallis Budge, M.A., Litt.D., D.Litt.; published by E. P. 

I.—Extracts from the Prayer to Osiris, chapter 125 (omit¬ 
ting repetitions) : 

“Homage to thee, 0 Great God; I have come to thee, O my 
Lord, and I have brought myself hither that I may behold thy 
beauties—I have come to thee, and I have brought Right and Truth 
to thee, and I have destroyed wickedness before thee—I have not 
oppressed the members of my family, I have not wrought evil in 
the place of right and truth. I have had no knowledge of worth¬ 
less men. I have not wrought evil. I have not made to be the 
first (consideration) of each day that excessive labor should be 
performed by me. I have not brought forward my name (for 
exaltation) to honors. I have not ill treated servants. I have 
not defrauded the oppressed one of his property. I have not done 
that which is an abomination unto the gods. I have not caused 
harm to be done to the servant by his chief. I have not caused 
pain. I have made no man to suffer hunger. I have made no one 
to weep. I have done no murder. I have not given the order for 
murder to be done for me. I have not inflicted pain upon man¬ 
kind. I have not defrauded the temples of their obligations. I 
have not committed fornication. I have not polluted myself (in 


the holy places of the god of my city), nor diminished from 
the bushel. I have neither added to nor filched away land. I have 
not encroached upon the fields (of others). I have not added to 
the weights of the scales (to cheat the seller). I have not mis¬ 
read the pointer of the scales (to cheat the buyer). I have not 

carried away the milk from the mouths of children. I have not 
driven away the cattle which were on the pastures. I have not 
snared the feathered fowl of the preserves of the gods. I have not 
caught fish (with bait made of fish of their kind). I have not turned 
back the water at the time (when it should flow). I have not cut 
a cutting in a canal of running water. I have not extinguished 
a fire (or light) when it should burn. I have not violated the 
times (of offering) the chosen meat offerings. I have not driven 
off the cattle from the property of the gods. I have not repulsed 
God in his manifestations.” 

II.—The Negative Confessions. 

The Negative Confession consists of the declaration of 
innocence of a soul before the forty-two deities while on 
trial at the end of life. The following extract omits the 
names of the forty-two deities as they are addressed in 
succession. The repetitions may be explained as being 
addressed to different deities, or in certain cases as taken 
from other sources than the text followed in this version: 




have not done iniquity.” 




have not robbed with violence.” 




have not done violence (to any 





have not committed theft.” 




have not slain man or woman.” 




have not made light the bushel.” 



“I have not purloined the things which 
belong to God.” 




have not acted deceitfully.” 




have not uttered falsehood.” 




have not carried away food.” 




have not uttered evil words.” 



Twelfth confession: 



Fifteenth ” 

Eighteenth ” 


Twentieth ” 

Twenty-first ” 




Twenty-fifth ” 




Thirtieth ” 

Thirty-first ” 


Thirty-third ” 

Thirty-fourth ” 



“I have attacked no man.” 

“I have not killed the beasts with are 
the property of God.” 

“I have not acted deceitfully.” 

“I have not laid waste the lands which 
have been ploughed.” 

“I have never pried into matters,” (to 
make mischief). 

“I have not set my mouth in motion,” 
(against any man). 

“I have not given way to wrath con¬ 
cerning myself without a cause.” 

“I have not defiled the wife of a man.” 
“I have not committed any sin against 

“I have not struck fear into any man.” 
“I have not encroached upon” (sacred 
times and seasons). 

“I have not been a man of anger.” 

“I have not made myself deaf to the 
words of right and truth.” 

“I have not stirred up strife.” 

“I have made no (man) weep.” 

“I have not committed acts of impurity, 
neither have I lain with men.” 

“I have not eaten my heart,” (lost my 
temper and become angry). 

“I have abused no man.” 

“I have not acted with violence.” 

“I have not judged hastily.” 

“I have not taken vengeance upon the 

“I have not multiplied (my) speech 

“I have not worked wickedness.” 

“I have not uttered curses,” (on the 

“I have not fouled water.” 

“I have not made haughty my voice.” 
“I have not cursed the god.” 





“I have not behaved with insolence.” 
“I have not sought for distinctions.” 

“I have not increased my wealth, ex¬ 
cept with such things as are (justly) 

mine own possessions.” 

Forty-second ” “I have not thought scorn of the god 

who is in my city.” 

The writer of the Ten Commandments, coming later than the 
foregoing could not have been unfamiliar with the preceding Egyp¬ 
tian sources, which are the voice of a human soul pleading its 
case before its judges before final judgment is imposed. It calls for 

a sympathetic and hopeful verdict as it proceeds, and thus appeals 
to the reader. There is no cowering servility in the presence of 
a “jealous God,” who commands and threatens in tones of thunder. 
It offers a gentle and humane contrast to the austerity of the Mosaic 
version, designed for a far more primitive race. These latter needed 
the awful thunder and lightening of Sinai, as recorded, to overawe 
the stiff-necked populace into obedience. As a literary production 
the Mosaic version is more dignified and inspiring, less specific, 
more condensed, and therefore better suited for liturgical purposes. 

Note 2—(See bottom of page 113, et passim). Professor Charles 
Gordon Cumming. “Assyrian and Hebrew Hymns of Praise,” (the 
Psalms). In the concluding chapter Professor Cumming states as 

“It is now universally recognized by scholars that the Hebrew 
nation came late upon the stage of history; and that when the 
Hebrew Bedouin passed out of the desert into the land of Canaan, 
they entered a land that had already experienced milleniums of 
civilization. The Hebrew conquorors took over not only the land 
with its walled cities and its cultivated fields, but they took over 
also the land’s sanctuaries, and in a large measure its religious and 
moral ideas.” 

Also the following from the same competent authority: 

“The Assyrian hymns make, however, their indispensable con¬ 
tribution in that practically all the religious ideas of the Hebrew 
hymns exist in cruder form in the Assyrian hymns. They help 
us to reconstruct the polytheistic background of the Hebrew 





Anti-Christ Is Anti-National 

Just as Judaism is Anti-Christ, so it is also anti-na¬ 
tional wherever it is harbored. It had failed as a nation 
before it was overthrown and devastated by the Romans 
in 70 A. D. Instead of accepting the decision of war and 
making the best of it under an efficient government as 
did the Galileans, Judaism accepted the fate of a parasite 
among the nations, and by means of the Talmud it organ¬ 
ized and perfected its plan for preying on all mankind. 

The Jewish race is a notorious failure in the matter of 

self-government when left alone; and because it puts its 

own race first under any other nation where it may be 

tolerated it thereby becomes an alien and disturbing ele¬ 
ment everywhere. Its so-called theocracy of ancient times 
is merely Judaism personified in its Jahveh, namely, the 
“chosen race” collectively. 

Centuries before Christ came this same enemy of the 
modern state was despised and distrusted by its neighbors. 
Even a bibliography on the subject is too lengthy to be 
considered here. Nor is it necessary to do so; for right 
before our eyes this antipathy of the Jews to the modern 
state has been demonstrated in what was Russia up to 
1917 A. D., when the fall of the constituted government 
was almost coincidental with the attack on Christianity 
by the Jewish soviets. This autocracy of satan promptly 
pillaged the churches, thereby securing ample means for 
its program of destruction. The robbery of a church in 
America serves but to provoke a smile; but the Russian 
people lavished costly gifts upon their churches—gifts 


loaded with pearls, with diamonds and other precious 
stones, so that robbing a church in Russia was comparable 
to robbing a bank. 

And a son 1 of a Jewish rabbi has been directing the 
spoliation and destruction of the Russian churches! Does 
anyone need to ask what became of the diamonds? But 
even this wholesale brigandage was not enough to sate 
the appetite of the despoiler, for it has been accompanied 
by a systematic massacre of priests and laymen beyond 
all that history records. The total number of those who 
died for their Christian faith is unknown; but authentic 
records up to 1928 include 31 bishops, 1,650 priests, and 
a grand total of martyrs exceeding 2,000,000 people, in¬ 
cluding the assassination of the emperor and his entire 
family, which was characteristically the deed of a Jew. 
And this does not include the unknown millions of the 
Russian people who have been foully done to death by 
violence or starvation in what is casually referred to as 
the Russian Revolution. Nero, when instigated by the 
Jews, could not have butchered a tenth of that number. 
Some Jews will deny their guilt in this awful business, 
others will boast of it, and it is the boasters who have 
the truth of it. 

Taking this record as a warning, every Gentile, whether 
Christian or not, is vitally concerned for his own safety 
and welfare in the presence of such an enemy as Judaism, 
the more so because it is not a declared enemy, but a foe 
under the cloak of religion. It calls itself “international,” 
while it is patently anti-national. It claims to be the 
source of Christ and His gospel in spite of all the his¬ 
torical facts to the contrary. It preaches “pacifism” the 
better to carry on insidious private war. For it well 

1—See New York Herald Tribune, Magazine section, April 16th, 1934. 



knows that a nation which shrinks from public warfare 
is an easy mark for those skilled in the furtive methods 

of private war. Its soap-box orators stir up discontent 
in order to tear down organized society. It hoodwinks the 
gullible into a false sense of security and non-resistence 
to evil, it discredits patriotism by condemning nationalism, 
it ridicules public morality and it vitiates the pulpit which 
it means to destroy utterly. With its horde of spies and 
traitors ever on the alert to catch us unawares, using and 
counseling force where possible and secret intrigue where- 
ever it can, adopting one method in one country and an¬ 
other elsewhere, it is this, THIS JUDAISM, which is an 
enemy that must be outlawed and expelled from among 
us, or we die. They may repudiate the Protocols, if that 
makes any difference, but they cannot repudiate the Talmud. 

The Democracy of States 

Modern nationalism is a product of Christianity. 
Ancient nations never conceived of such a principle as 
the democracy of states, which grants to each state the 
sovereignty within its own domain. Nothing was law be¬ 
tween the ancient nations but the will of the strongest. 
It was the regime of hegemony—the leadership and reign 
of force. The small Greek city-states resented and resisted 
it manfully, but in the end it was force that triumphed 
over Greece, and the regime of hegemony went unchal¬ 
lenged down to the Thirty Years’ War, when the struggle 
between the monarchical principle and the democratic 
principle was fought to a stalemate by the contending 
forces of Christianity. It was then that these opposing 
parties to the conflict met at the Peace of Westphalia, 
(1648) and wisely laid the foundations of modern na¬ 
tionalism and international law by committing themselves 
to the support of these principles: 


First, a state must have independence or sovereignty; 

Second, a state must have juridical equality; 

Third, a state must have territorial domain . 

The Jews have neither of these attributes of statehood, 
therefore they are not a nation. As stated elsewhere, they 
are an organized tribe. They have no right in the family 
of nations to pretend to statehood, yet at the Council of 
Versailles (1918-1919), Jewish influence made itself felt 
to an unwarranted degree through the representatives of 
France, Great Britain and the United States of America, 
and the historic milepost of the Peace of Westphalia was 
quite ignored. This was a step downward toward the dis¬ 
integration of organized society, precisely as desired by 
Judaism. In every way they sought to diminish the inde¬ 
pendence and sovereignty of states. Their success at Ver¬ 
sailles, and especially in the overthrow of Russia, at once 
emboldened them to declare a policy of hostility to all 
other nations as “capitalistic.” This was their way of 
secretly declaring war against the organized states, and 
an announcement of their intention to overthrow them; 
for as a prominent Russian observed, “the soviet regime 
is the only capitalistic organization in the world; they 
want all the capital and the people to have none.” It is 
simply a restatement of the program of the Talmud, the 
“chosen race” doctrine that claims all wealth for the Jews 
and denies it to others. 

Parasitic Organization 

A parasitic organization, such as that of the Jews, is 
fundamentally the reverse of that of a nation. The latter 
is designed to afford the greatest degree of liberty to the 
component parts thereof that is consistent with the ends 
and purposes of its form of government. In a republic 
its basis lies in the reservation of all liberty of action 



to the individual that is not conceded by the individuals 
to the state. Hence, we have the dictum that the state 
should govern as little as possible, an ideal that rests 
upon the integrity and capacity of the citizens for its 
justification. Obviously, in a society of delinquents such 

a dictum would be out of place. A state contemplates a 
peaceful objective for its domain, and it therefore puts 
its defenders, its army and navy, on the battle front as 
a security for all. In this it follows the analogy of peace- 
loving animals in placing their fighting strength around 
the margin of the herd. Even predatory animals have 
learned the value of concerted action, and here we approach 
the domain of the human kind. 

But the predatory human organization, the political 
parasite whose aim is destruction, follows a course opposite 
to that of the political state; for its defenders, its cham¬ 
pions and leaders, seek the center of the herd or tribe, 
where they can bellow their defiance in safety. The syna¬ 
gogue, for intance, shielding itself as a sanctuary, is such 
a place of security as the rabbis well know. 

The parasitic organization has certain advantages—for 
the parasite. In addition to the above it has a mass of 
membership to serve as the contacting body with the 
outside world—a convenient smoke-screen for their leader¬ 
ship, to shield them from attack and defend them from 
suspicion. An air of injured innocence can be assumed 
by the whole visible membership, even while an active 
offensive is in progress. If met with the proofs of hos¬ 
tility they will deny all partnership therein, but they 
will not denounce the guilty. Who ever heard a Jew 
denounce Karl Marx, Weisshaupt, or Trotsky? For they 
know that whenever such leaders succeed and claim the 
biggest share of the reward, the whole tribe will profit also. 


What a comment on Judaism is the fact that the Passover 

and the Purim, their two great festivals, are in celebra¬ 
tion of their own successful treachery—of a parasite against 
its host! The rallying cry, “To your tents, 0 Israel,” is 
intended for all Jewry whether champions or otherwise, 
and it is the threat of the parasite. 

And then, it must be remembered, there are the internal 
parasites—the disease germs, which work their way of de¬ 
struction throughout the human body, secretly, insidiously 
—what shall their remedy be? The question needs no 

Jewish Leadership 

In what manner the Jewish leadership is recruited, or 
who may be responsible therefor, does not so much con¬ 
cern us as does the result of that choosing. For whatever 
be the method of choice, it certainly permits, and thereby 
encourages, the emergence of well-known fire-brands of 
society who make it their business to stir up strife, to 
destroy public confidence, to debase the institutions of 
state, education, religion, and to offer nothing of value 
in return. Jewish leadership stops at nothing to gain its 
ends—and no wonder; for among them are such crooked 
instruments as Caiaphas, Herod, Nero, Lenine, Trotsky, 
Weisshaupt, Karl Marx, Hertzl, Ginsberg, and many other 
unprincipled scoundrels, Jewish or non-Jewish, who are 
vile enough to be chosen for their purposes. Such tools 
are all the more fit for their use when they are, like Nero, 
Lenine and Karl Marx, morally and physically rotten, 
depraved with vicious living. If these be the tools of 
Judaism it but signifies a degradation of mind, morals and 
body indicative of the race that chooses them. Homer, on 
the contrary, painted Thersites, the trouble-maker of the 
Greeks, as a creature too disgusting to sight and mind to 



deserve any argument but blows, and it was thus that 
Ulysses, the wisest of the Greeks, answered him. The Jews 
on the contrary exhalt such monsters of depravity as their 
heroes and standard bearers. 

Racial Complicity 

It is folly to protest that there are those of the Jewish 
race to whom these strictures do not apply, and that they 
should not be held responsible for their racial leaders. In 
reply it must be said that a battle is on between two silent 
forces—a battle that threatens to break into open violence 
as suddenly as revolutions usually do, and that it is not 
the time nor the occasion to discuss particular instances. 
When you face the ranks of an enemy in arms you do not 
stop to inquire if there are any good people among them, 
and an enemy in arms is less to be dreaded than a furtive, 
secret enemy, skilled in all the ancient arts of devilish in¬ 
trigue and deception. With the organized tribe of Jewry 
among us we must assume that every Jew is a Jew, and 
though we have given him citizenship we can not make 
him an American. We must remember that to be an 
American is vastly more than being just an American 
citizen. To forget that distinction is to follow the fatal 
path that led to the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 
The well-known solidarity of the Jewish race is not an 
easy thing to overcome. It exceeds that of all other people 
among us, whether by choice of its members, by intimida¬ 
tion from its leaders, by the personal advantages to be 
gained, by the natural difficulties involved in the racial 
tie, or all of these together. Exceptions to this solidarity 
in favor of specific cases, if we choose, may be in order 
after fundamental differences have been settled with the 
race as a whole. No one can blame the host of a parasite 
for using any means whatsoever to get rid of it. In a 


struggle of life and death as against an internal disease 
any effective means available are imperative. Does the 
Jew understand this? We can, and will, if necessary, in¬ 
dict a whole race, as an enemy, public or private. 

Judaism Analyzed 

How many Jewish organizations there may be among 
us we can easily verify from their own publications, such 
as the Jewish Communal Register, published by the Kahal, 
or Kehilla, of New York City, the Jewish Year Book, and 
other sources intended only for Jews. Judaism is a cult 
under a religious cloak, beneath which we discern these 

First , Judaism is primarily an organized racial or tribal 
unit or bond instead of a religion, state or nation. It has 
a partially concealed structure that commands the obedi¬ 
ence of its members, and makes its resentment felt by those 
whom it dislikes. This concealed structure may be as 
simple as that of a herd or pack of animals with a self- 
appointed leadership, provided that the pack yields a will¬ 
ing and effective obedience. Such leadership it already 
has in its rabbis, who by virtue of the protection of a 
religious calling utter sentiments that might be construed 
as treasonable. 

Second , Judaism being a cult rather than a religion, 
is not entitled to be regarded otherwise than as an ethnic 
group, with aims and objectives of its own that are ad¬ 
mittedly at variance with ours as a nation. The Jewish 
Communal Register is authority for that statement. It is a 
perpetual alien by reason of its “chosen race” fetish, and 
as aliens its members should not be endowed with citizen¬ 
ship even though natives of our country. 

Third , Judaism is an unethical bond or unit, except 
among those of its kind. According to the Talmud its 



hand is against everyone outside of itself. If its mem¬ 
bers do more than this it is not that Judaism requires it. 

Fourth, Judaism is a clandestine unit or bond, using 
for various purposes the following-named organizations: 
the local Kahals, or Kehillas; the American Jewish Com¬ 
mittee, which is the central organism; Young Judea, which 
trains its youth for more than “a local patriotism” de¬ 
signed for Jewish interests; the B’Nai Brith (sons of the 
covenant), and its secreted agent, the Defamation League 
(with the prefix camouflage “Anti”), the B’Nai Abraham 
and many others. The Defamation League is the agency 
which prevents or discourages publications of which it 

Fifth, Judaism is an industrial unit or bond—in effect 
a close corporation for the exclusive benefit of the tribe. 
It is more than that, for its power is used also to the harm 
and disadvantage of Gentiles, especially those who know 
and reveal its true character and methods. In the financial 
field it is a concentrated power operating in many nations, 
like a huge corporation with monopolistic advantages, a 
veritable “octopus,” remorseless and persistent in its re¬ 
venge upon those who oppose its will. It is a public 
enemy that will destroy till it is destroyed—just as history 
records. Its watchword, “All for one and one for all,” 
is for Jews only. 

As a close corporation Judaism does not require brains 
except in its management. Its members are simply born 
into it, and are not chosen on any test of ability, nor re¬ 
tained because of success. There are no expensive elec¬ 
tions nor administrative affairs, and if ever its tribal 
machinery is inadequate for its needs it has the govern¬ 
ment of its host to rely upon, or to be distorted to suit 
its purposes. Its leaders do the thinking and planning 


for it, and all that the herd must do is to make money 
and follow the leaders. Hence, Judaism does not culti¬ 
vate ability in the mass but only in the occasional scoundrel 
who manages to rise to leadership over the herd. And 
that leadership requires such distorted intellects as Karl 
Marx and other apostles of communism and anarchy, be¬ 
cause they have no higher philosophy than parasitism. 
If “corporations have no souls,” it readily follows that 
the managers of those corporations can have none. 

Gentile Competition 

But on the contrary, it does require brains on the part 
of Gentile competitors to combat the gigantic power of 
the whole tribe of Israel. For Gentiles in their love of 
freedom, including free competition among themselves, do 
not combine against the Jewish octopus as it does against 
them, as anyone may see who does business with or among 
them. The Jew prefers shelter and an easy success by 
identifying himself with the racial parasite in exchange 
for the freedom of competition. We used to hear much 
of the “oil octopus” and the “steel octopus,” and all the 
others of that much-disliked family. But even these were 
not bound together by race, nor protected by law as a 
religion, nor united by a planned hostility toward all out¬ 
siders. They had no international brotherhood to come 
to their help, and conspire with. They were supremely 
selfish, but far from hostile except for purposes of gain. 
The Jewish octopus, as set forth in the Talmud, shows a 
hostility for malicious and vindictive purposes as well as 
for gain, and it clothes the whole delivish hyprocrisy with 
a show of religion which our laws magnanimously forbid 
us to touch. And there are fools among us who praise 
the Jew for his business ability, an octopus in the midst 
of competing free citizens who have the courage and the 



manhood to remain free! Verily it is eloquent testimony 
to the superior capacity of the typical Gentile American, 
fighting his own lonely battle for a living, and enjoying 
his own “rugged individualism,” his freedom and his pride 
of manhood therein, if he has managed just to keep alive 
in the face of such formidable competition. Contrast his 
spirit of freedom and independence, the same that Christ 
preached with more than angelic fervor—contrast it if you 
will with the cowardice that hides within a parasitic or¬ 
ganization, then tell yourself which you want your country¬ 
men to be like. Industrial freedom is impossible when 
parasites abound. 

Jewish Parasitism Self-Confessed 

“The Jewish Communal Register,” published by the 
Kehillah of New York City, states in its Preface (p. IV, 
vol. 1917-18) that its two purposes are, first, “To present 
as complete a list as possible of Jewish communal activi¬ 
ties,” and second, “It must interpret as well.” Hence, this 
volume is an authentic source from which to quote their 
aims and purposes. Evidently this volume is not intended 
for the public to see, since it is not on public sale and it 
is extremely difficult to obtain. The following quotations 
from this source are to be valued accordingly 

“Young Judaea” (p. 1396): 

“The purposes of Young Judaea are twofold. It aims 
to foster, or even arouse, if need be, that Jewish conscious¬ 
ness among the Jewish youth that is so necessary for the 
full realization of Jewish life; and secondly, it endeavors 
to direct Jewish work among the youth along nationalistic, 
and more particularly, Zionistic lines. Although its out¬ 
look upon Jewish life is broad, the organization insists 
that Jewish life devoid of nationalistic elements is lacking 
in one of the most important essentials.” “The medium 


through which Young Judaea works is generally the club 
or group of clubs of Jewish children, ranging in age from 
ten to twenty years.” 

“The Young Judaea ideal, however, is something much 
greater than that which has been outlined above. We of 
the organization fondly look forward to the day when 
the Young Judaea idea, no longer locally American, shall 
have united in one powerful organization on the common 
platform of service to the cause of Israel, the entire Jewish 
youth of the world.” 

Prominent in the organization of this movement were 
foreign-born Jews, and it is evident from the foregoing 
that Jews do not consider themselves to be Americans, as 
indeed they are not. As stated many times herein, they 
are parasites, and in the Young Judaea movement they 
confess their purpose to be to train their children from 
ten to twenty years of age to “look forward to the day 
when the Young Judaea idea, no longer locally American ” 
shall be “something much greater.” If this is not treason, 
name it . A parasite can never be an American, and should 
never be given American citizenship. One result of this 
doctrine of deceit can be traced in the increasing insolence 
and rudeness of the Jewish youth. 

The American Jewish Committee (p. 1413 ff.): 

This is the central committee for Jewish activities in 
the United States, and it thus defines its objects (p. 1415); 

“(1) To prevent the infraction of the civil and religious 
rights of Jews in any part of the world.” 

This is equivalent to a purpose to make our country 
the defender of the Jew all over the world—which is ask¬ 
ing too much from a parasite. The attempted boycott 
against Germany, however, is a case in point. 

“(2) To render all lawful assistance and to take appro- 



priate remedial action in the event of threatened or actual 
invasion or restriction of such rights, or of unfavorable 
discrimination with respect thereto.” 

“(3) To secure for the Jews equality of economic, 

social and educational opportunities.” 

It is high time that we should emphasize the distinc¬ 
tion between Americans and American citizens when a 
parasite can demand “equality” in a society where he is 
not wanted. 

“(4) To alleviate the consequences of persecution 
wherever they may occur, and to afford relief from calami¬ 
ties affecting Jews.” 

Behold how one such case resulted! On page 1413 
mention is made of the “terrible Russian massacres of 
1903 and 1905 which shocked the world.” There were no 
Russian massacres whatever at that time. There was an 
attempt by nihilists to overthrow the government and it 
was deservedly put down and those who were caught were 
punished. The alleged “shock,” however, accomplished its 
purpose on the American public. It was the same old 
story, but it worked, because we were sympathetic, as usual, 
with the poor Jews. And now note what happened next. 
The sequel is to be found on another page (1416), which 
reads thus: “By decree of the Supreme Court of the State 
of New York the Committee (American Jewish Committee) 
was adjudged to be entitled to the balance remaining in 
the hands of the National Committee for the relief of 
sufferers by the Russian massacres (!) which amounted to 
$190,000. This sum has since been practically exhausted 
by appropriations for various purposes mentioned below.” 

So here we have it by their own admission—a sum of 
money raised by public contributions, designed for a 
benevolent purpose that never existed, the sum of $190,- 


000, converted by the New York Supreme Court into the 
treasury of the American Jewish Committee. And this is 
what they did with it as they openly admit: 

1. “The Committee successfully opposed the bill in¬ 
troduced in Congress in 1909, providing that census enu¬ 
merators should ascertain the races of all inhabitants of 
the United States.” 

The Jews, for reasons of their own, do not want their 
numbers known here or elsewhere. Hence, their organiza¬ 
tions, according to the boast of this committee, accomplished 
the defeat of legislation needed by the whole country. 

2. “The Committee also opposed with success the 
passage of legislation and the rendering of judicial deci¬ 
sions, by which it was sought to deprive ‘Asiatics’ of the 
privilege of naturalization, because it was believed that 
such laws would deprive Jews coming from Asia of the 
right to become citizens.” 

The round-headed “Judeo-Mongols” might well have 
been excluded had the needed legislation been passed. 
These are the so-called “Ashkenazim,” the Jews who are 
most resistant to our civilization. 

3. Restriction of immigration. “Three restrictive bills 
containing the literacy test were successfully passed by 
Congress, but all were vetoed, one by President Taft and 
two by Wilson. The Committee opposed this legislation 
at every stage.” 

And that is how it happens that we have an inunda¬ 
tion of undesirables in this country. The Jews boast in 
their own publications of their influence in defeating im¬ 
migration restriction. 

4. The abrogation of the treaty of 1832 with Russia. 
This treaty had been in effect most satisfactorily for Ameri¬ 
cans and Russians, but not for Jews, during a period of 



eighty years. It was abrogated, according to the Jewish 
Communinal Register, upon the insistence of the American 
Jewish Committee. 

All of these operations of the American Jewish Com¬ 
mittee involved the expenditure of enormous sums for the 
“relief” of the suffering Jews here and abroad. It is told 
in the pious terms of a religion, but it reads like the record 
of a set of racketeers, who have squandered the funds col¬ 
lected in the name of charity in ways that were not sanc¬ 
tioned by those who contributed the money. All evidence 
points to the conclusion, in spite of the cloak of religion, 
that Judaism is a grafter on a gigantic scale. 

The Jews the Same Two Thousand Years Ago 

Tacitus, the Roman historian (Vol. II, p. 264 ff.), 
tells us that “while the Assyrians, and after them the Medes 
and Persians, were masters of the East, of all the nations 
then held in subjection, the Jews were the vilest. Com¬ 
menting upon this same subject the French historian, 
Renan, has this to say: 

“ We must not lay these (disturbances) to the account 
of the Roman government. Massacres just as awful took 
place among the Parthians. * * * One of the glories of 
Rome is to have founded its empire on peace, and the 
suppression of local wars. As to massacres on religious 
grounds, the idea of it was as far as possible from the 
Roman mind. * * * Besides, antipathy against the Jews 
was so universal in the ancient world that there was no 
need of pressing it. This antipathy makes, as it were, a 
boundary trench among men, which perhaps will never 
be filled. It can not be without reason that unhappy 
Israel has been ever the victim of slaughter. When every 
nation and every age has persecuted you there must needs 
be some motive behind. Down to our day the Jew has 


pushed his way everywhere, claiming the common right. 
But in fact the Jew would never stand upon common 
right; he would hold to his peculiar law; he insists upon 
the privileges open to all, and his own exceptional privi¬ 
leges into the bargain. He claims the advantages of na¬ 
tionality without being of any nation. No people could 

ever tolerate that. A nation is in essence a military struc¬ 
ture; it is founded and sustained by the sword; it is the 
work of the soldier and the peasant; it is what the Jew 
has aided in nothing to establish. The tolerated foreigner 
may be of service to a country, but on condition that the 
country does not allow him to interfere in its affairs. 
There is no justice in claiming family rights in a house 
you have not built 1 .” 

Ernest Renan, “Anti-Christ,” p. 93: 

“Positive religions, like Islamism and Judaism, do not admit 
any divided authority. If they have not absolute rule they complain 
of persecution. If they find themselves protected they become exact¬ 
ing, and try to make life unendurable to all other worships.” 

“In general, the Roman power showed the utmost regard for 
the pettiest scruples of the nation (Jewish). But this was not 
enough. Things had come to such a pass that nothing could be 
done without touching upon some question of the canon.” 

“Doubtless there was wrong on both sides as I frankly admit, 
in the hundred years’ experiment made by Roman and Jew to 
live together, which issued in so dreadful a catastrophe.” 

“It would have needed perfection itself not to be exasperated 
by that narrow and haughty temper, that hostility to Greek and 
Roman culture, that ill-will to all mankind, which a surface knowl¬ 
edge took to be the essence of the Jew. Besides, what could a 
magistrate possibly think of subjects always trying to accuse him 
before the emperor, and to form cabals against him, even when 
he was perfectly in the right? In that deep hate which now these 
more than two thousand years has prevailed between the Jews and 

1—Ernest Renan, “Anti-Christ,” p. 206. 



all mankind, which party was first to blame? * * * It was those 

who thought themselves defiled by contact with the Gentiles, those 
who demanded for themselves to be kept apart in a community 
by themselves.” 

“Between the Roman empire and the Jewish orthodoxy there 
was radical hostility. In this hostility Jews were oftenest insolent, 
quarrelsome and aggressive. The idea of equity in common, which 
the Romans had with them in germ, was hateful to the strict 
observers of the law (Jewish), who asserted a morality wholly at 
odds with a society purely secular, untouched by theocracy, like 
that of Rome. * * * The Jews had their law built on a founda¬ 
tion wholly different from the Roman right, and at bottom irrecon¬ 
cilable with it. Until they had been unmercifully checkmated they 
could not be satisfied with mere tolerance.” 

Same, p. 206 ff., Massacres in Syria and Egypt: 

“A general word of command, as it were, seems just now to have 
run through the East, everywhere inviting great massacres of the 
Jews. Jewish life was proving more and more incompatible with 
Greek and Roman life. Each of the two races sought to extermi¬ 
nate the other, and between them there was no quarter. To under¬ 
stand the conflict we must first have seen how far Judaism pervaded 
the entire eastern portion of the empire.” 

Quoting from Strabo, the well-known geographer of antiquity, 
Renan says: “They have invaded every city, and it is hard to find 
any place in the world that has not received this tribe, or more 
correctly, accepted its domination. Egypt, the land of Cyrene, and 
many others have adopted their customs. * * * In Egypt they 

have legal residence, and a great part of the city of Alexandria is 
assigned to them: they have their ethnarch, who attends to their 
affairs, administers justice among them, oversees the execution of 
contracts and wills, just as if he were the chief magistrate of an 
independent state.” 

Renan resumes: “Two elements as opposite as fire and water 
could not mingle thus without constant danger of most awful ex¬ 

And the explosions came as they always do where Jews 
abound, as they have done but recently in Germany. Woe 
to that land which is unprepared when they do come! 
How shall it be with America? 



PART II — Chapter VII 

The Talmud is a compilation of casuistry based upon 
the “sacred writings” of the Hebrews chiefly “the laws” 
as found in the Book of Deuteronomy. There are two 
principal collections, namely, the Babylonian and the Pal¬ 
estinian or Jerusalem Talmud. The former is the more 
complete, for which reason it is often referred to as “the 
Talmud.” Tanslations into Latin, German, French and 
other languages have been in existence for some time, but 
not into English until quite recently. The edition con¬ 
sulted and quoted in the main in this chapter is Rodkinson’s 
translation (R) of the Babylonian Talmud. 

Rodkinson, translator and editor, states in his preface 
to Vol. I that he has “removed from the text those accre¬ 
tions that were added from outside sources which have 
proved so fruitful a source of misunderstanding and mis¬ 
representation.” This is a dangerous admission for an 
editor to make without the sanction of an authorizing body; 
for it means that he has taken liberties with the text to 
act as a self-appointed expurgator, and the reader is denied 
the opportunity to pass upon his fitness to do so. What 
was his motive, or authorization? May anyone else do 
the same? Judging from what remains it must have needed 
expurgation before being put into English, like many a 
passage from the Old Testament. But this is the work of 
a Council rather than that of any self-appointed editor 
whose work may be rejected in the next edition. 

The editor is aware that the Talmud has been the object 
of attack. He says that “defense made by the mere cita¬ 
tion of phrases is useless, and at the best, weak”; and 



further that there is “only one defense that can be made 
in behalf of the Talmud. Let it plead its own cause in a 
modern language.” This looks like a non possumus” on 
the part of the editor and translator, even after he has 
taken the liberty with the text as aforesaid. Besides it is 
not clear why “defense made by the mere citation of 
phrases is useless.” We can not be expected to read the 
ten or twenty volumes and more, even in translation. And 
again, to put it into a modern language might be regarded 
as a “defense” or a ridiculous exposure according as one 

looks at it. However, students of the subject should be 
grateful to the translator and editor for making it accessible 
in our own language. And if it has had the formative 
influence upon the modern Jew that the editor claims for 
it, we, the public, are vastly more concerned than is any 
mere student. 

For, says the editor (R, Vol. I, Preface), “The modern 
Jew is the product of the Talmud, and every attack upon 
it is an attack upon the Jew.” This is a challenge that 
the reader must not forget when he studies the ensuing 
quotations from that work. Some good people have mis¬ 
takenly supposed that the formative influence upon the 
modern Jew is the Old Testament with its treasured “laws” 
that the Apostle Paul vainly tried to reconcile with his new¬ 
found religion. And now Editor Rodkinson tells us that 
“the modern Jew is the product of the Talmud,” which 
is about as irrelevant to the Scriptures as were the vagaries 
of the “schoolmen” to the doctrines of the New Testament. 
Casuistry sometimes leads into strange and devious ways, 
so that the starting point has little to do with the conclu¬ 
sion. It is thus with the hair-splitting nonsense of the 
solemn old rabbis who in the Talmud dabbled with prob- 



lems of life and death and human conduct in its minutest 
details, as children might play with fire in a powder maga¬ 
zine, thinking themselves very wise indeed. Those rabbis 
usually succeeded in missing the main point, “giving tithe 

of mint, anise and cummin, but neglecting the weightier 
matters of the law.” Hence, it need not be surprising that 
when they turned to the subject of crime and the appro¬ 
priate punishment therefor, mere misdemeanors were some¬ 
times classified along with heinous offenses, and the penalty 
imposed was torture before the accused was permitted to 
die. The rabbis who wrote the Talmud were slaves to 
what was “written in the law,” and their meagre faculties 
were restricted to the quibbling interpretations thereof. If 
Editor Rodkinson is correct in this—and there seems to be 
no reason to doubt it—Judaism has allowed this meticulous 
comment of the rabbis to stupefy it into a comatose con¬ 
dition, an obedience to tradition, and there it has stayed, 
age after age, unable to escape its bondage. Thus, Deuter¬ 
onomy 7:2-6 is accepted with all its rabbinical distortions, 
and these have converted Judaism into nothing less than 
satanism. Behold how it reads: 

“For thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God: 
the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people 
unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of 
the earth.” Taking this just as it stands—and that is what 
the infantile minds of the rabbis did—one can justify race 
worship, self-worship, and sex worship; and what else is 
Judaism today? 

Can any sane people with a spark of humor in their 
make-up really believe such nonsense? Do the Jews actu¬ 
ally believe it themselves, or merely follow a racial policy 
that agrees with it? A Gentile who would accept it con¬ 
demns himself deservedly. To one who believes in Christ’s 



revelation of God tlie Father it is nothing short of blas¬ 
phemy to hold to such satanism. It is worse than idolatry, 
for it sets up the worship of self. 

To the student of the Talmud a further significance is 
to be noticed, namely, the Talmud is unequivocally Jewish 
—it can not be repudiated. The Jews spend much effort 
in trying to repudiate the “Protocols of the Wise Men 
of Zion”—but why? No matter who wrote them—do 
they fit the facts? Let the Jews first repudiate the Talmud 
—if they can, for it is full of damning evidence against 
them. Then there are Hertzl, Weisshaupt, Karl Marx and 
a host of others—all to be repudiated. 

It is a crime punishable with death, says the Talmud, 
both for a Gentile who does it and for the Jew who assists 
him therein, to study the Talmud. This is a curious illus¬ 
tration of Jewish intolerance when the power is theirs, 
and of compromising when they have not the power. Dis¬ 
regarding the threat, and the editor’s opinion that “a mere 
citation of phrases” does no good, let us examine this mass 
of ancient nonsense, the work of their wise men, of which 
the modern Jew is said to be the product. 

The Talmud Speaks 

(R. Vol. VIII, p. 149): “Four kinds of capital pun¬ 
ishment are prescribed to the court by the Scriptures: viz., 
stoning, burning, slaying by the sword and choking.” The 
Talmud speaks of these as “capital punishments,” but only 
the third deserves that term, the others being death by 
torture of various kinds. 

“All who are stoned (p. 139) are also hanged,” and 
“the sages said only a blasphemer and an idolater were 
hanged, a male with his face toward the people, and the 
female with her face toward a tree” (p. 161). Death by 
stoning was for the vilest of crimes (except murder), 



including violation of the Sabbath.” That was the penalty 
that Christ faced when He healed a man on the Sabbath. 

The refinement of cruelty (it reminds us of our own 
Indian warfare) was reserved for those who were to be 
burned, for they were to be burned inside first, then out¬ 
side, as thus described: “The sinner was placed in waste 
knee deep. Then placing a twisted scarf of coarse material 
within a soft one they wound it around his neck. One 
(of the witnesses) pulled one end toward himself, the 
other doing the same, until he opend his mouth. Mean¬ 
time the executioner lights (heats) the string and thrusts 
it into his mouth, so that it flows down through his inwards 
and shrinks his entrails. To which Rabbi Jehuda said: 
should the culprit die before the string is thrust into his 
mouth (from choking), then the law of burning has not 
been properly executed, and therefore his mouth must be 
opened forcibly with a pair of pincers. Meanwhile the 
string having been lighted, is thrust into his mouth so that 
it may reach his intestines and shrink his entrails.” 

“What kind of a string is it?” “A string of lead.” 

The reader is reminded that all the above in quota¬ 
tions was taken from an expurgated edition, whence the 
editor tells us he had “removed from the text those accre¬ 
tions from outside sources which have proven so fruitful 
a source of misunderstanding and misinterpretation.” 
Hence, it is quite authentic as a description of a refine¬ 
ment of cruelty practiced by the Jews as a legalized 
penalty for certain offenses. 

The Observance of the Sabbath 

Let it be repeated that the penalty for violating the 
Sabbath (though it was often commuted by a fine) was 
“to be stoned and hanged,” and that Christ repeatedly 
healed the sick, and otherwise transgressed the Sabbath 



regulations. Let us have a look at the danger of violating 
them, if indeed it was possible not to do so. 

There are thirty-nine principal acts of labor enumerated, 
the performance of any one of which constitutes a viola¬ 
tion of the Sabbath. But that is not all: for each one of 

the thirty-nine is a classification covering possibly scores 
of acts instead of just one. Thus, “ploughing” includes 
digging, delving, weeding, fertilizing,” etc. It would have 
been easier to remember a list of things one was per¬ 
mitted to do (and therefore not so productive of fines). 
However, the rabbis have listed the thirty-nine, so here 
they are (Vol. I, p. 136) : “sowing, ploughing, reaping, 
binding into sheaves, threshing, winnowing, fruit-cleaning, 
grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, wool-shearing, bleach¬ 
ing, combing, dyeing, spinning, warping, making two 
spindle-trees, weaving two threads, separating two threads 
(in the warp), tying a knot, untying a knot, sewing on with 
two stitches, untying in order to sew together two stitches, 
hunting deer, slaughtering the same, skinning them, salting 
them, preparing the hide, scraping the hair off, cutting it, 
writing two (single) letters (characters), erasing in order 
to write two letters, building, demolishing in order to re¬ 
build, kindling, extinguishing (fire), hammering, transfer¬ 
ring from one place to another.” Now multiply each of 
these by a dozen or more, and the true number of the pro¬ 
hibited acts will be approximated. Thus- 

“Grinding ”—to chop beets is “to grind.” Why? Also 
splitting wood for kindling is “grinding.” Again, why? 
But splitting leather is the same class of work as cutting 
by measure. Never mind why. 

“Sewing on with two stitches ”—a culpable act pro¬ 
vided two knots are made; otherwise it would not hold, 
hence it would not be work. 



“Scraping the hair off ”—of a slaughtered deer, for 
example. “To polish a floor on the Sabbath is a trans¬ 
gression of the same order as scraping the hair off the 
hide.” (Far fetched but understandable.) 

“Hammering ”—“smoothing a stone makes one culpable 
for hammering.” 

“Carrying ”—“It is forbidden to carry about chopped 
straw in quantities of a cow’s mouthful, stalks in quanti¬ 
ties of a camel’s mouthful, stubble in quantities of a kid’s 
mouthful, leek and onions, if fresh, equal in size to a dried 
fig, and if dry in quantities of a kid’s mouthful.” 

Comment on such puerile nonsense is uncalled for— 
and besides there is worse to follow, such as- 

Paring the nails . “One who pares his finger nails on 
the Sabbath, either by means of his nails or his teeth (!), 
also who plucks hair from his head, beard or lip, is, accord¬ 
ing to Rabbi E., culpable. If the nails are pared by means 
of an instrument (knife), all agree that he is culpable.” 
Moreover, if it is partially severed he must leave it alone 
till after the Sabbath. Also a woman who braids her hair 
is culpable according to the same Rabbi E. 

Here is an astonishing bit of hair-splitting, the reasons 
for which are too recondite, or insignificant for anybody 
but a rabbi to trifle with: “One who plucks something 
from a perforated flower pot is culpable; from a flower 
pot that is not perforated he is not culpable” (Vol. I, 

p. 181). 

It is not merely page after page of such infantile paral¬ 
ysis of intellect that one encounters in the Talmud, but 
volume after volume. And fortunate would it have been for 
their reputations as wise men of Zion if they had confined 
their attention to harmless nonsense, such as the foregoing, 
instead of taking themselves so seriously as to dabble in 



criminology and other matters of consequence. In the 
midst of these frivolities there happened along one day 
that marvelous Man from Galilee, healing the sick, cleans¬ 
ing the lepers, causing the lame to walk and the blind 
to see. But He performed these acts of mercy on the 
Sabbath or any other day; more than that, He would not 
rebuke His hungry disciples for plucking the standing grain 
(harvesting), and rubbing it out with their hands (thresh¬ 
ing), a double violation of the Sabbath. And so they went 
about to kill Him. The penalty was “death by stoning 
and then by hanging with the face toward the public.” 
Will anybody tell us that the gospel of Christ owes any¬ 
thing to the Judaism of His day? Imagine it—all plastered 
over and besmeared with rabbinical idiocy such as this! 
Was it ever a better and brighter Judaism in the earlier 
days, except under the brief meteoric flash of an Elijah 
or an Elisha or an Isaiah or Jeremiah, which faded away 
as they vanished from sight? Can it be a better Judaism 
now, if it is really true, as the editor of the Talmud tells 
us, that the modern Jew is the product of the Talmud? 
Again, look at the fate of Russia. 

The Eighteen Regulations 

In Vol. I (R), Appendix p. 381 ff. we are told that 
“the day on which they (the eighteen regulations) were 
enacted was as grave in its consequences for Israel as the 
day on which the golden calf was made.” Concerning the 
golden calf we need not be reminded, but what about the 
eighteen regulations? Here is the answer as quoted from 
the Talmud: “At no time in the history of the Jewish 
race do we find so much deliberation, profundity of thought 
and depth of calculation in evidence as at the time when 
the sages secluded themselves” (i e., when the eighteen 
regulations were formulated). “There it was that means 



were devised to keep the nation of the Jews intact and 
proof against annihilation.” And further, “All this and 
more was done with the sole purpose of preserving the 
integrity of the Jewish race, and preventing its absorption 
by other nations.” 

So there we have it upon their own confession, that 
the one event in all their history that may be compared 
with the beginning of the worship of the golden calf was 
that other day when the program was formulated for be¬ 
ginning a parasitic existence; a vagabond existence among 
the nations, but not of them. Some of the rules proclaimed 
for fastening this parasitic character upon the Jewish race 
were the following: 

1. “Prohibition of partaking of the bread, oil, etc., 
of the Gentiles.” 

2. “Proclamation declaring the children of heathens 
(Gentiles) unclean.” The purpose of this measure was to 
prevent the children of the Jews from joining others in 
play and thus forming attachments. Along with the wor¬ 
ship of the golden calf is this poisoning of the minds of 
their own children against the rest of mankind. No wonder 
that hereditary insanity is so common among the people 
of their race. 

3. “Proclamation declaring the women of Samaria, the 
deadliest enemies of the Jews, unclean, in order to prevent 
their employment as servants by the Jews.” 

Taking this just as it stands it is clearly a racial taboo. 
The races to the north of Judea were not regarded by the 
Jews as being of their own people, and here is an inter¬ 
diction by the Talmud itself of miscegenation with them. 
This is all the more evident from the fact that the reason 
given is false. For the Samaritans, and especially the 
Galileans, occupied a land so much more fertile and 



attractive that they were more likely to be the employers 
of the Jews than the reverse. This fact was not lost upon 
the Jews as they betrayed in some of their sayings con¬ 
cerning the fruitfulness of Galilee. It is significant that 
the Good Samaritan in the parable had some money to 
spend on the hapless stranger, while the Jewish priest and 
Levite “passed by on the other side,” a fact that might 
have been attributed to their poverty, possibly. 

It is often alleged in behalf of the Jews that the pro¬ 
gram of parasitism is a result of their overthrow as a 
nation by Titus, which was followed by the great “dias- 
peron,” or scattering of their race. But the program itself 
is older than that event, and its causes lay rather in the 
incompetence of the race for developing a stable govern¬ 
ment of their own. The Talmud was in course of prepara¬ 
tion many years before the birth of Christ. Hillel, one 
of its best-known authorities, was born in 70 B. C., just 
one hundred^years before Titus took and destroyed Jeru¬ 
salem. It was Hillel who said, “What is hateful to thee, 
do not unto thy neighbors; this is the whole law. All the 
rest is commentary to this law.” In a negative form this 
is not far from the golden rule of Christ. But notice the 
Talmudic comment upon it at a later date (Mishna, San¬ 
hedrim 57) : “Where it is written, Thou shalt not do 
injury to thy neighbor, it is not said, Thou shalt not do 
injury to a Goy.” Thus, whatever ethical precept is an¬ 
nounced by one authority of a general character is con¬ 
troverted by another. Judaism boasts of the Hillel doc¬ 
trine, but tells you nothing of its subsequent retraction by 
the Talmud. 

Unexpurgated Talmudic Sources 

The quotations thus far have been taken from the ex¬ 
purgated Babylonian Talmud. But it is when we come 

/and forty/ 



to the unexpurgated Palestinian Talmud that the true 
animus of Judaism toward Gentiles is seen in all its malevo¬ 
lence. It is strange that Judaism should permit such evi¬ 
dence to be displayed, and stranger still if the Gentile 
world should continue to ignore it. Taking the text from 
Deuteronomy (7:2-6) already quoted, this is what we find: 
“You (Jews) are human beings, but the nations of the 
earth are not human beings, but beasts.” Again (Tosefta, 
Erubin VIII): “On the house of the Goy one looks as 
on the fold of cattle.” Again, (Baba Batra, 54 b.): “The 
estates of the Goys are like wilderness, who first settles in 
them has a right to them.” Again (same 55 a): “If a 
Jew has struck his spade into the ground of a Goy he has 
become the master of the whole.” 

If Jews should take these denials of the right of private 
property to all but themselves—if they should take them 
literally and act accordingly—could any line be drawn 
between them and any other thieves , robbers , burglars , 
pirates and all other criminals against property rights? 
And can it be denied that they always do so when the 
power is in their hands? 

“Schulchan Aruch 99 is an authority that is regarded 
by the Jews with especial respect, hence please note the 
following (Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 425, 50): 
“Those who do not own Torah (Jewish law) and the 
Prophets must all be killed. Who has power to kill them 
let him kill them openly with the sword; if not, let him 
use artifices (poisons?) till they are done away with.” 

The same authority has this to say with respect to the 
property of Gentiles: “The property of the Goys is like 
a thing without a master.” Again (same, I, 136)—the 
often quoted Kol Nidre prayer: “All vows, oaths, prom¬ 
ises, engagements, and swearing, which, beginning this very 



day of reconciliation we intend to vow, promise, swear, 
and bind ourselves to fulfill, we are sorry for already, and 
they shall be annulled, acquitted, annihilated, abolished, 
valueless, unimportant, our vows shall be no vows, and 
our oaths no oaths at all.” This has been found in mod¬ 
ern Jewish publications in essentially the same language, 
allowing for variations for purposes of concealment. 

Schulchan Aruch (II, 1:247): “In order to annul 
marriages, oaths and promises, a Jew must go to the rabbi, 
and if he is absent, he must call three other Jews and say 
to them that he is sorry to have done it, and they say, 
“Thou art allowed to.” 

Sculchan Aruch (Choszen Hamiszpat, 28 art., 3 & 4): 
“If a Goy wants a Jew to stand witness against a Jew at 
a court of law, and the Jew could give fair evidence, he 
is forbidden to do it; but if a Jew wants a Jew to be a 
witness in a similar case against a Goy, he may do it.” 

Sanhedrim 59 a , Aboda Zora 8-6: “Every Goy who 
studies Talmud, and every Jew who helps him in it ought 
to die.” 

Again, “One should and must make false oaths when 
the Goys ask if our books contain anything against them. 
Then we are bound to state on oath that there is nothing 
like that.” Verily the Talmud is the code of the parasite . 

So ends our quotations from the Talmud. 

These be the dogmas of hell, 0 ye Gentiles! They will 
be denied by the Jews, as usual, but the Talmud furnishes 
the evidence against them. History likewise, ancient and 
modern, provides eloquent proof. Will you say, as some 
belated ministers are still saying in their pulpits, that 
Christ said, “Love your enemies, do good to them that 
despitefully use you and persecute you?” Then remember 
that He said also the following (Matthew 23:13) : 



“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for 
ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men: for ye 
neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are 
entering to go in.” 

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for 
ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long 
prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” 

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for 
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when 
he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell 
than yourselves.” 

“Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, whosoever 
shall swear by the temple it is nothing; but whosoever 
shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.” 

“Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold 
or the temple that santifieth the gold?” 

“Woe unto you, scibes and Pharisees, hyprocrites! for 

ye pay tithe of mint and anise and crummin, and have 
omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy 
and faith: these ought ye to have done and not to leave 
the others undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a 
gnat and swallow a camel.” 

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hyprocrites! for 
ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but 
within they are full of extortion and excess.” 

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hyprocrites! for 
ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear 
beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, 
and of all uncleanness.” 

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hyprocites! be¬ 
cause ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the 
sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in 
the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers 
with them in the blood of the prophets. Ye serpents, ye 
generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation 
of hell?” 





I Galilee and the Galileans. 20 

The Canaanites . 21 

Disunion and Its Consequencees. 22 

The Lay of the Land in Galilee. 23 

Deportation of the Ten Tribes. 24 

Sargon Brings Back the Gentiles. 25 

The Nordics in Galilee. 25 

The Scythians . 26 

The Gauls Invade Asia Minor. 27 

Grecian Galilee. 27 

Origin of the Greek Influence. 28 

The Decapolis Under the Romans. 29 

The Plain of Esdraelon. 30 

Nazareth . 31 

Other Deportations . 33 

The Galileans as Proselytes. 34 

The Deus Loci . 35 

Jewish Compromising . 37 

Summary . 39 

II Christ Came . 43 

The Messiah of the Gentiles. 44 

Prophecy and Prophesying. 46 

The Genealogies . 47 

Gentile Testimony to the Advent. 49 

The Mission Begins . 50 

What Said Christ About His Messiahship? 55 

Christ’s Attitude Toward the Gentiles. 58 

Was There a Change in His Attitude Toward 
the Gentiles? . 60 



The Greek or Syro-Phoenician Woman. 60 

The First Missionaries . 62 

The Divine Tragedy . 64 

III The Escape From Judaism . 72 

The Instruments . 72 

The Greeek Instrumentality . 73 

Summary of Differences . 74 

Abandoning the Compromise . 78 

The Greeks to the Rescue. 79 

The New Leader . 81 

The Early Conversions and Martyrdoms.... 81 

The Incompleteness of the Escape. 83 

Paul’s Struggle with the “Laws” . 85 

Christianity Goes to Rome . 86 

The Great Fire and Its Consequences. 87 

The Origin of the New Testament Canon ... 88 

The Four Points of Ebionitism . 91 

IV Christianity an Occidental Religion . 97 

The Oriental Dress . 98 

Translation Into English . 100 

Other Avenues . 102 

Toleration, Not Compromise . 104 

Exceptions Do Not Count . 106 

Indicting a Whole Race . 107 

The Jewish Invasion of the Pulpit . 108 

Christianity and the Political State . 109 

Modern Ebionitism . 110 

The Importance of Ebionitism to Modern 
Jewry . Ill 




The Background of Judaism . 114 

V The Historical-Racial Background . 115 

The Land of Sumer . 115 

The Sumerians, or Aryans . 117 

The Semites . 118 

Whence Came the Hebrews? . 119 

The Hebrews in Egypt . 120 

Their Flight from Egypt . 121 

A Digression . 122 

The Invasion of Canaan . 124 

The Cultural Background of Judaism and 
the Jews . 125 

Hebrew Dualism—Not Monotheism . 127 

The Gospel of Indency . 128 

The Prophets and the Writings . 129 

Other Sources . 130 

Limitations in Language . 131 

The Background of Jewish Mentality . 132 

Jewish Animalistic Mentality . 134 

Jewish Mentality Asymmetrical . 135 

Love of Publicity . 136 

Mental Concentration . 137 

Analytical Mindedness . 138 

Parental Immorality . 139 

Force and Justice . 140 

Traditionalism . 140 

The Hebrew Messiah Tradition . 141 



The Aryan Deliverer . 144 

The Hebrew Messiah a Political Need . 145 

Probable Sources of the Ten Commandments 146 

VI Modern Judaism, the Blight of the World.... 150 

Anti-Christ Is Anti-National . 150 

The Democracy of States . 152 

Parasitic Organization . 153 

Jewish Leadership . 155 

Racial Complicity . 156 

Judaism Analyzed . 157 

Gentile Competition . 159 

Jewish Parasitism Self-Confessed . 160 

Jews the Same Two Thousand Years Ago.... 164 

VII The Talmud . 167 

The Talmud Speeaks . 170 

The Observance of the Sabbath . 171 

The Eighteeen Regulations . 174 

Unexpurgated Talmudic Sources . 176